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?

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.

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.

Gwen wrote: 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.

Gwen wrote: 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?

Gwen wrote: 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.

Gwen wrote: 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?

Gwen wrote: 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?

Gwen wrote: 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.

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?

Gwen wrote: 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?

Gwen wrote: 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?

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.

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

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!

Gwen wrote: ...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.

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.

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 wrote:

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."

Perhaps "Abyssal Earth" might be better?

What I have tried to do is have these ratings for most everything, therefore nearly eliminating "skills." The rating are:

Combat
Unarmed
Ranged
Melee

Education
Science
Craft
Mechanting

Experience
Lore
Socializing
Drive

And then these groups receive plusses and/or minus' based on the rank of the appropriate attribute (i.e. a high intellect adds to the education skills) and then there are racial modifiers as well.

Gwen wrote: And then these groups receive plusses and/or minus' based on the rank of the appropriate attribute (i.e. a high intellect adds to the education skills) and then there are racial modifiers as well.

Gwen wrote:

I've been continually working on different mechanics ideas and recently came up with one and thought I would see if it was a bad idea.

I'm assuming we're all familiar with the d20 sys and how you have a RANGED and MELEE attack rating. Then you have random proficiencies you acquire, which means you can use the attack rating when using these weapons.

And then these groups receive plusses and/or minus' based on the rank of the appropriate attribute (i.e. a high intellect adds to the education skills) and then there are racial modifiers as well.

With Science as an example, you add up your intelligence modifier, your race modifier and then add it to 10. That's your Science Rating. Then you have proficiencies that you get, say: biology, botany, physics, etc... You purchase these instead of skill.

That way you really only have 9 numbers you ever need to keep track of during game play, but still have a wide range of skills available to you if you so desire.

(The same would work for Clerics, Psychics, Deamons, etc. They would have a FAITH or SUPERNATURAL rating and then buy powers as "skills" for the appropriate rating.)

Does this sound useable? Worse yet, it's stealing the mechanic directly from d20. Is it a BAD mechanic? No sense in having a system based around a broken part.

Echo Rob. The complex multilayered model of d20, and your take on the same, allow for effective EoS, but that seems not to be your goal.

So, let's talk about your goal, as it relates to mechanics.
What audience is this game aiming at?
What effect do you want to achieve with the mechanics?

Now, I'm not really an authority on your setting, but if I were running a WWwhichever game with demons and agents of God running around on God's green earth, I certainly wouldn't want to define closely what they were capable of. Miracles and inexplicable acts of damnation are what the supernatural is all about.
On the other hand, I would also want to have a good strong idea of where characters fit into the setting. This plays partly into knowing exactly what they're capable of.

What I'm suggesting is that you have elements that you've said you want to maintain "realism" with. That's generally in line with Sim-style design. Skill systems are pretty Sim.
But, you also have elements that cannot be portrayed in a manner even approaching realistic, because they are not real. Angels, demons, psychics, etc., fall into this category. I don't feel that the supernatural, as you've described it, can be effectively portrayed (not modelled, portrayed) with the skill system you're proposing for the remainder of your mechanics.

Consequently, I advocate that you have two systems running in parallel, one for mundane resolution and one for supernatural resolution. The difference can be as simple as in description, like so:

example wrote: Mundane skills represent methods, which you use to reach ends.
Supernatural skills represent your ability to reach ends, but you are free to describe their outcome with whatever method you feel is appropriate.

I don't think it's sensical for angels to have skills like "Use Flaming Sword", basically, when you could have a skill "Vengeful Fist of God"

Originally I had the idea of using these nine categories as the basis for all ranks:

Unarmed
Ranged
Melee
Science
Craft
Mechanting
Lore
Socializing
Drive

But it occurs to me that perhaps not every skill could fit under these categories. So I would like to ask for suggestions on the categories.

I want to make sure that they will be comprehensive, so that way there aren't any skills that are unable to fit anywhere.

I think Unarmed, Ranged and Melle cover pretty much every aspect of combat, but when it comes to knowledge, Science Craft and Merchanting leaves a few holes. Where does history fall? Or literature?

So will these skills singled out, the categories for Knowledge aren't completely comprehensive. So would someone help me comprise a list?

Gwen wrote: Originally I had the idea of using these nine categories as the basis for all ranks:

Unarmed
Ranged
Melee
Science
Craft
Mechanting
Lore
Socializing
Drive

But it occurs to me that perhaps not every skill could fit under these categories. So I would like to ask for suggestions on the categories.

I want to make sure that they will be comprehensive, so that way there aren't any skills that are unable to fit anywhere.

I think Unarmed, Ranged and Melle cover pretty much every aspect of combat, but when it comes to knowledge, Science Craft and Merchanting leaves a few holes. Where does history fall? Or literature?

So will these skills singled out, the categories for Knowledge aren't completely comprehensive. So would someone help me comprise a list?

RATINGS

COMBAT
Unarmed (Strength + Racial Bonus + misc. bonus') 1-20+
Melee (Dexterity + Racial Bonus + bonus') 1-20+
Ranged (Perception + Racial Bonus + bonus) 1-20+

KNOWLEDGE
Science (Education + Racial Bonus + bonus') 1-20+
Craft (Creativity + Racial Bonus + Bonus') 1-20+
Technology (1/2Education + 1/2Creativity + Racial Bonus + bonus') 1-20+

EXPERIENCE
Lore (Intelligence + Racial Bonus + bonus') 1-20+
Social (Charisma + Racial Bonus + Appearance + bonus') 1-20+
Drive (Reaction + Racial Bonus +bonus') 1-20+

XENO
Holy (XENO + Racial Bonus + Bonus') 1-20+ (Angels, Clerics, etc...)
Curse (XENO + Racial Bonus + Bonus') 1-20+ (Demons, Cultists, etc...)
Mind (XENO + Racial Bonus +Bonus') 1-20+ (Psychics)


Bonus': Each rating can be affected positively or negatively by the following types of bonus':
Theological (Angels or Deamons)
Technological (Cyber Implants or Computers)
Psychological (Psychic)
Biological (Genetic Engineering or BioImplants)

Characters who do not have supernatural powers do not have a XENO rating, but are able to use more Technological or Biological bonus'.
-------------------------------------------------------------

SKILLS

Skills do not have ratings, you either have the skill or you don't. Each skill has a RATING it is associated with. If you have the skill, you roll 2d10 and try to roll a number under your rating. If the number is lower, , you succeed in the task.

If you do NOT have the skill, but attempt it anyhow, you have to roll lower than the appropriate rating, but with 3d10 instead of 2d10.

Certain skills will be listed with prerequisites. You can only learn STUNT DRIVING if you already know CAR DRIVING. You can only learn NUCLEAR PHYSICS if you already know PHYSICS.

----------------------------------------------
XENO POWERS

Xeno powers are selected like skills, but executed differently. XENO POWERS are categorized by what they accomplish. HOW it is accomplished is up to the user.

For example, a character might select FLIGHT as a power. When they use it, it is up to them if they fly with wings, if they jump great distances, if angels carry them or if they walk on air.

Another example, a character might select RANGED ATTACK as a power. Even though it is a ranged attack, it still uses the XENO rating, because the execution and aim is all meta-physicsal. It is up to them to decide if the damage is caused by a flaming sword, a holy beam of light, a psychic-propelled bullet or a grenade of hellfire.

----------------------------------------
CREATING SKILLS OR XENO POWERS

Once a skill or Xeno power has been lerned, the character can learn a new skill or xeno power, or they can advance the ones they already know!

For example, if someone has RANGED ATTACK as their Xeno power and they are able to advance later, they can change RANGED ATTACK to UNLIMITED RANGE-RANGED ATTACK or MULTIPLE SHOT-RANGED ATTACK. New powers or skills should not advance too fast. You cannot go from the PISTOL skill to UNLIMITED RANGE-MULTIPLE SHOT-QUICK DRAW-PISTOL.

All advancements should be approved or created by the GM and the GM is free to not allow any advanements he feel would unbalance them game.




This is just what I have so far, I'm working on racial bonus' for the deamons and angels, trying to make everything balance out relatively well.