I am having some troubles designing a skill system (the game will be skill based).
I am trying to build a system in which a PC competent in a domain could easily

It is intended for a Birthright like game, with a political/strategy and a personnal layer, but the skill system is a generic problem I had:

I don't like systems that split skills too much (Cadwallon would be a good exemple, but some skill subdivision in DnD are somewhat strange too, and it basically forces players to always use the same weapon), because that can results in non sensical specializations (like a warrior expert at hitting other, but unable to parry a single blow, or a maser acrobat unable to jump...).

I had started designing a 3 tiered skilltree, with skill group, skill, and specialization (ala Shadowrun), but it sounds too rigid to me, and it would be hard to balance the skill groups (as having them all have the same number of skills would force arbitrary decisions).

Thus I am considering either having having a separate set of skill for general tasks (like combat, communication, administration), and add them to the more specialized skill for resolution (they would function like attributes usually do then), or going for a simple skill system.

Considering the two sets of skill approach, even though "normal" skills could be related to situation skills, they would not depend on these (Trying to intimidate someone with weird kung fu move would use social+melee for instance, instead of combat+melee).
The problem I have with this approach is that it will not really solve the problem of close skill, as it would still be possible to be a lousy jumper and a good accrobat (although it would depend on the scale of the situationnal vs general skills).

The second thing I am considering would be only keeping skills, but letting them give a discount on raising similar skills, and give them a various cost depending on their scope and usefulness, however, the problem I see is that the similarity would be very arbitrary, and would have to be defined from the beginning (while the situationnal pairing would be up to the gamemaster), but it could be adressed by letting players define their own pairing (with gamemaster approval).

A variant of this one would be to have very broad skill, and many specializations for each skill. These specializations would allow to use the skill at its normal level once acquired (or could even add points to the skill).

Should I go with either of these systems, or should I consider something else?

You could always use something similar to the Serenity model.

Pick 20 or so general skill areas that characters develop proficiency in. Once the character has mastered the basics, they then focus on a more specific area of expertise.

For example: Unarmed combat could begin with the basics of punching and dodging, once these are acquired, characters can then pick up new combat techniques such as wrestling moves, martial arts, etc.

Example 2: A general academics skills could give a character a well rounded education at the lower levels, but then focus on specifics such as geography, history, high-degree mathematics or other specific areas of knowledge.

In each of these cases, the character can truly exceed in one specific area, but the general skills around that specialization are also known at a moderate level.

V 

That is what I had been trying to do at first, but I could not decide on how to allocate some skills (like horsemanship: in a medieval themed game, it should be under combat skills, but it could be under travelling skills too).

A solution would be specialized skills to have several possible prerequisites.
But if I go with this model, how to balance the cost/weight of base skill vs specializations?
How many tiers are there in Serenity? And what is the relative weight of specialized skills vs the broad base ones? 50%?

Serenity basically works off a two tier system.

You buy up skills in die type, where each die costs a proportional xp amount.

d2 (basic level costs 2pts)
|
d4 (increasing to this level costs an extra 4 pts)
|
d6 (increasing to this level costs an extra 6 pts)
|
d8 (etc.)

Once you hit d8, you specialise. You can't go beyond d6 in general skills.

You can branch out to get multiple specialties once you hit d8 level, but every specialty will costs 8 pts to acquire.

Specialties then increase in cost like normal skills, increasing to d10 costs 10 points, increasing to d12 costs 12 points, etc.

I'm sure there are more elegant ways to apply this type of system to the ideas you are developing, but that's the general concept.

V

Thank you for your answers.
I'll have to check this system more closely.

Hi. I might be wrong but the costs for specialties start a new at 2 points each.
So 2,4,6 Points for the Basic Skill at d2,d4,d6
and 2,4,6 Points for ONE Specialty at d8,d10,d12 inside a Basic Skill.
You must have d6 in a Basic Skill bevor aquiring any Specialties in it.
This is for CharGen (I just looked it up).

For in game advancement it's like Vulpinoid said.
(Always pay the accumulated price = the new die-type)

Hi Galdred,

Here's what many years of discussion at the Forge yields, for your question: you need to consider what sort of conflicts and problems the characters will face, and which of those the players will want to roll for, in your game. These are a big deal, and they should be considered in that order. Only then will you know how to organize your skill list, because it should facilitate making characters who are just right for playing this game, and provide means for having the most fun possible during play.

That's a lot of concept in one short paragraph. Do you have any questions about what I mean?

Part of processing this concept includes realizing that most RPGs' skill lists are essentially useless and do not add to enjoyable play, because they fail to integrate three things: (i) the system of costs and choices that go into acquiring skills during character creation; (ii) the vision of one's character that a player likes to keep in his or her head and to reinforce and develop during play; and (iii) GM prep and presentation of conflicts during play itself.

This idea also means that two skill-based games may be very, very different from one another. (That's a funny bugaboo about RPG skill-based game design - everyone wants their game to work for any other game, for some reason. Gotta toss that out too.)

So the first thing to do is to throw out much of your own experience with skill lists and skill-based character concepts in published RPGs, and to start from those two things I mentioned in the first paragraph, in order. Then you can design the skills (options, mechanics, and content) in a way which makes (i, ii, iii) possible.

Best, Ron

Basically, I was planning to have characters play medieval knights or lords. Thus, on the personnal level, the game would focus on politics, diplomacy and combat, while the strategic level would focus on administration, warfare and trade.

The skills would serve as base for skill checks, but would yield benefits on the strategic level too (for instance, the income collection would not require a check, but would be based on the character demesne, and the character administration, (or other appropriate skill) for instance. I did not want to have them roll for that because these would be important, but unclimatic rolls (tax collection is hardly something unexpected), but then, I was wondering wether it would be appropriate to have different game mechanics for the strategic and personnal layers.

As many skills (like medicine, survival, pathfinding) would be processed by NPC followers, I don't plan to have them, or only as very broad general skills.