My original skill system was based around verbs. Players would choose skills such as "shoot", "hide", "sneak." This worked, but my players wanted something that could be more specific.

In bouncing ideas around I came up with the concept of skill phrases. When selecting skills the players can choose words that are either verbs, adjectives, or nouns. When stating what they are doing, every word that is in their statement of intent that is also in their skills list allows them to add the associated pool of dice.

So here's a sample skill list:
Shoot:3
Hide:1
Open:1
Lock:2
Armor:2
Repair:2

sample statements of intent:
Hide in the shadows (hide +2)
Open the lock (open + 1, lock +2)
Repair the lock (repair +2, lock + 2)

I'd appreciate any thoughts and feedback.

you should check out Wushu, as it does something similar. it might help you sort out what you are looking for.

gtroc wrote:
you should check out Wushu, as it does something similar. it might help you sort out what you are looking for.

Hi, What do you think the phrases are bring to the table?  why do you want to use them?  Maybe the following can generate some ideas.

My own game, Ingenero uses 'plays' which are a description of something specific a character can accomplish.  Its like one of your phrases, but is meant to include descriptive terms to provide imagery and, collectively,  a sense of the characters style.  A play describes something a character can accomplish, and if the play is successful, then thats exactly what does happen - there is no need to interpret a successful dice roll.  What occurs is exactly what is described by the play.  If your play is opposed by another characters play, then whichever play is successful describes what happens next without ambiguity or modification.

http://ingenero.wordpress.com/

i.e. (a realtively unremarkable commando style character)
+1 Unleash a burst of withering automatic fire
+1 Fire an automatic weapon in short controlled bursts at a single target
+1 Shoot a pistol rapidly and accurately, even while moving or diving
+1 Rapidly identify and make use of the best available cover
+1 Sprint down low while darting abruptly from side to side to avoid fire
+1 Block a melee attack efficiently with an elbow or knee check
+1 Silently dispatch an opponent with a surprise knife attack
+1 Advance silently through cover, weapon at the ready

The other difference is they are derviced from a broad base rather than a specific base.  for instance a character might have a base stat 'soldier' which allows him to attempt all manner of 'soldierly' actions.  The player is encoruaged to take as broad a base stat as possible - the game wants capable, relevent characters. 

For instance, the list of skills in your example below

"Shoot:3
Hide:1
Open:1
Lock:2
Armor:2
Repair:2"

could be covered in Ingenero by "Commando" or "Partisan" or "Scout", etc... whatever makes sense in the setting.

To humour the forum owners you'll need a link to some sort of document or web page you have about the game (if you have a blog, just link to a page where you've mentioned the game! >:) )

Anyway, yeah, it's the old question of "What are the players actually doing, in RL in terms of gameplay, when they describe what they are doing?"

In one game I wrote, players got bonus points for including randomly determined scenery in their description.

One idea might be to have it as is, but the GM determines that in each situation, which certain keywords get double the dice (or half again, or whatever extra amount you wanna have). The players then want to try and use appropriate words, since those will get the bigger dice pools.

Callan wrote:
To humour the forum owners you'll need a link to some sort of document or web page you have about the game (if you have a blog, just link to a page where you've mentioned the game! >:) )

stefoid wrote:
Hi, What do you think the phrases are bring to the table?  why do you want to use them?  Maybe the following can generate some ideas.

My own game, Ingenero uses 'plays' which are a description of something specific a character can accomplish.  Its like one of your phrases, but is meant to include descriptive terms to provide imagery and, collectively,  a sense of the characters style.  A play describes something a character can accomplish, and if the play is successful, then thats exactly what does happen - there is no need to interpret a successful dice roll.  What occurs is exactly what is described by the play.  If your play is opposed by another characters play, then whichever play is successful describes what happens next without ambiguity or modification.

Reminds me a bit of Ars Magica - Create Fire (verb noun).

Maybe look up review of ars magica and see what people say about that aspect?

You might be able to achieve your limiting aims by uses one or other of the classes of verbs, nouns and adjectives as providing static modifiers or altering target numbers, something at right angles to simply adding dice.

But to make it work I need to be limiting on the number of dice that they can pool together at any one point. So I need to limit their overall ability and I want to get them to think about character development.

...and it also leaves the studious GM free to incur personality penalties on his poor unwitting players.  "Greed" is a great example; "you see a gleam of gold in the corner of your eye.  Take a greed check to avoid reflexively turning towards it when you know there's a Gorgon behind you."

Using verbs to identify the skills being used is a really neat idea. Although I can't offer advice, I will applaud the idea for being (imo) a good one.

Well, I am not sure that it is such a good idea. Or more precisely, I think this should be re-phrased in terms independent from language properties (verb, noun, etc). I have a hunch this will lead to strange situations.

For instance consider ride. Would you allow ride horse, ride elephant and ride car? The answer will obviously depend on the setting:

• modern: hell no, one has nothing to do with one another!
• modern rules lite: yeah, riding would be like pilot, so no problem
• Rome: ok, as long as you mean those cars
• Golden Horde Khanates: no way, ride means ride horse, only the conquered ride chicken

I'll admit that this is a rather contrieved example but I see where I'm getting at. Some words have more different meanings than others, and the meaning of a word depends on its context.

Finally, you could even end up with untranslatable skills. The meaning conveyed with a verb in one language may not be translated as a single verb in other one. It may not matter a lot to you but it is quite hard to play RPGs in foreign languages, so if you want to target wider audiences then your rules must be easy to translate.

Now for the constructive. I understand and praise the idea to have skills assembled from individual parts. I've toyed with similar a idea for a prehistoric game, where characters should not be too specialized (they were required to survive in a wide range of situations). What I did was to split skills into Feats and Environments, and a roll would rely on one appropriate Feat added to  one appropriate Environment.
For instance:
Feats: Stealth and Fight
Environments: Outdoors and Indoors
Now you can roll under four combinations. Of course not all combinations are meaningful. This was actually inspired from SimulacreS (in french, sorry), a rather obscure French RPG, their axes were a bit more abstract.

I've just skimmed over TechNoir. It uses a related idea: skills are donoted as verbs and effects are modulated by adjectives. Characters and gear have different adjectives. It looks quite nice though I never played it.