Summary:

Individual Skills are graded 1-3. They are organized as a group of inter-connected tech trees. If you've seen the tech trees for the PC Civilization games, that's what it looks like, but with different skills and the addtition of grades.

Also, skills can also have prerequisites as a certain grade and there can be different paths to the same specialized skills.

For example, the pre-req for Computer Engineering may be Computer Hardware(3) or Electronic Engineering(1) or Computer Hardware(2) AND Electronics(2).

Actions using skills may be attempted by anyone, whether they have the skill or not, only for skills at the first 2 rungs (base and first set of branches) on the trees. These are general enough that anyone might have a chance at or cursory knowledge of: Things like Math, Fighting or Basic Navigation. Specialized stuff like C++ programming requires at least a (1) in a related skill.

Skills are improved either through points awarded and used between adventures or on the job when 3 20's are rolled (applying bonuses). See Context below to make sense of that.

Context:

The core mechanic is in this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8604&sid=e7f1dc87c37425462bb60b79c26c2fa7

The game is S>G>N or S=G>N

I'm creating the Triquetra system for games that fit this mold. At the moment it's for an RPG that includes a deep simulation of wilderness survival and tracking.

Questions:

Does this system seem to lend itself to simulation-oriented gameplay?

Is there a modification I could make to enhance, ahem, realism?

Does it sound cool at all? :)

Thanks.

It strikes me as being stageringly difficult to construct sensible trees like this. And even more difficult to balance the specifity of the skills.

Is drive a skill? Or is drive <car> a skill? or is drive <ford mondeo> a skill? Does drive <manual car> require drive ? Is there a drive <rally> skill, or will drive <car> 3 suffice? Does drive <car> allow you to drive in any country? Or do you need a drive <france> skill?

If there is a C++ skill, will it let you use Unix at all? Will it let you program in C? Will it let you take a shot at understanding some Java? Can every programmer with C++ level 3 write in MFC, or do you need a programming <Windows with C++> skill for that?

If I want to fit a graphics card, do I need Computer Hardware, Computer Engineering or Operating Systems <Windows 2000> to do it? What about if I need to change the processor? What if I need to build my own PC from parts, and then overclock it?

It strikes me that three levels is going to be too granular to give the distinctions you need, while you're ultra-crunchy skill sets will lead to glaring inconsistencies and far too many ambiguous distinctions.

I'm afraid this level of "realism" or intricacy would simply turn me right off your game. Is it any more "realistic" than games like The Pool, where you just state the name of the Trait or whatever and, within the context of the game/world your character can do stuff related to that trait? I personally doubt it.

What on earth will a character sheet look like?

Simon

Jack and Simon,

Thank you for your criticism. You both raise very valid points.

I may have to scrap the skill system and start over. I do want the crunchiness and the "realism" but obviously I don't want to complicate things more than I have to.

First, though, I think I'll try and write up a sample tree and post a link to it. Maybe it's not as bad as it sounds. The skills won't get as specific as a particular programming language or a certain country's driving laws. A certain amount of ambiguity/overlap is okay IMHO as long as the GM can interpret it fairly.

Oh, and Gideon, the character sheets could just be a list of skills. Showing it in the book in tree form would only help a character in planning a path to a particular skill they want.

Chris Barrett wrote: Jack and Simon,

Thank you for your criticism. You both raise very valid points.

I may have to scrap the skill system and start over. I do want the crunchiness and the "realism" but obviously I don't want to complicate things more than I have to.

I tried with a similar thing with Wraeththu, it was wonderful, but jsut to complex and clunky, so I dropped it.

The problem boing this system works fine whena computer is controling it for you, but in table top I think some people would struggle, the jumps from one level to the next would have to be quite small.

E.G.

Computer operations branch to Spreadsheets, Wordprocesssing e.t.c.

Big jumps would to me seem a little quick to advance your skills to the next level.

I think the hardest part I found was developing the tree and testing it.

Also 1-3, offers little scope withing a broad range skill. 1 to 5 is the lowest I'd go to get some realism (prefer 1-20, it's a good range to work well with.), at least you can fit some degree of separation between best and worst. I feel the greater the separation between low and high, the bettwr the players sence of how they weigh up with the world in general.

A way to go is have the start of the tree as 1-3, the next layer 1-5, the next 1-10, so on up to 20 or so. but rather than haveing to get under the number you have to roll over it. So as the abilities of the skill get harder, so does the chance of succeding. As even the best computer programmer will tell you things are still challenging and they never get easyer.

It would keep the tree idea, but add the element of challenge to difficult tasks. Also might be a way round doing difficulty modifyers as they are bulit in to the skill. You may have to work out some sliding scale where, with tier 1 skills your difficulty is say 20% chance to succedd, but when you get tier 2, tier 1 becomes 20% and tier two becoms 10%. Up untill you reach max level and Tier 1 becomes 100% and Tier 5 is only 20%.

it would probably need some testing and working out but could work well and take some strain of the storyteller as the difficulty is built in.

Chris Barrett wrote: First, though, I think I'll try and write up a sample tree and post a link to it. Maybe it's not as bad as it sounds. The skills won't get as specific as a particular programming language or a certain country's driving laws. A certain amount of ambiguity/overlap is okay IMHO as long as the GM can interpret it fairly.

Oh, and Gideon, the character sheets could just be a list of skills. Showing it in the book in tree form would only help a character in planning a path to a particular skill they want.