Background skills

[zornwil]

Savage Worlds has a great skills approach in terms of background skills in that you basically define your background and your INT-type ability dictates your rolls with these, with a +2 for things you would have really been knowledgable about.

Now, of course, SW is a far less granular system. But one of the things I hate about cost-balancing characters in HERO is dealing with all the background skills they should have. This is particularly bad in heroic campaigns where points are scarce (and ought to be).

What if there were a similar approach in HERO? Define background, all such things are a single INT-based skill (no pluses in this system). Bascially you're not allowed to take preexisting other skills (presumably those are "cost-balanced") and let's say you can't take fields of study beyond, say, 1 or 2, with this approach, or some such thing. But you can take areas, cities, etc..

I think we sort of need this in HERO. ESPECIALLY if we want it to be a "heroic fiction" game. For "realism" one can always simply opt out of this rule.

Thoughts?

[prestidigitator]

Hmm. I don't know. I find that the definable Everyman PS and KSs, with maybe one or two more, typically cover this; seeing as you can make Background Skills as general or specific as you like, a character with a general background can define one or two Background Skills and be done. For those who want to be more specialized, one or two more complimenting skills, and/or some SLs, can do the job.

[zornwil]

I'll give you an example from a game - I had a naval captain from the Regency era. he travelled in the Indian Ocean and the European seas. He has knowledge to a reasonable degree of many ports in those areas. He has a basic knowledge of Indian customs. He grew up in the slums of London. he was supposed to have an interest in Indian trading and snuff boxes. And of course he has many Naval skills and knowledges. To represent these with the many 3 point skills was simply prohibitive in a 75+75 character. I had to cut a few naval skills and gloss over them and cut most of the Indian skills. Of course I used some general KSes but they really don't cover so well as something like this would. Plus in general, i don't think that it make ssense in a game about "heroic fiction" to make people invest heavily in the background skills to the exclusion of that which will be more immediately relevant. And moreover it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not, or develop that background as the game proceeds but then of course at least they become tied down to it and the character is enriched and the roleplaying bettered.

[Vondy]

I often have heroic characters with a significant investment in background skills because it would make sense for them to have the stuff, even if it seldom, if ever, comes up in play. What about this: build the character using the available points, and based on the background, negotiate the nonessentials (the background skills that likely serve more to flesh the character out than have much impact on play) with the game master? there would need to be some threshold and the GM could be picky about what he allows and doesn't, but it would allow for those additional things withough giving players additional points to sink into the major goodies that will unbalance the game or make the GM's life difficult. Another option might be to give the player more points (for instance, 100 + 75), but require 25 points be dedicated to background skills (approved by the GM).

[David Blue]

And moreover it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not, or develop that background as the game proceeds but then of course at least they become tied down to it and the character is enriched and the roleplaying bettered.I've gamemastered superheroes with a system that made a highly respectable quantity of skills free as part of your background, but further skills very expensive and requiring rationalisation.

I hope it will not shock you to learn that the thunderbolts of superheroic power bestowment fell with unerring accuracy on hard-bitten ex-cops, people who grew up right in the city where the game was set and so on, to the exclusion of dedicated philatelists and angsty teenagers whose families had moved cities recently from somewhere irrelevant. If the game was to be in Sydney, nobody had a background that required them to know anything about Perth or Hobart.

In other words, "it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not." It does indeed prod them hard to choose their backgrounds wisely.

Are you trying to simulate a genre where there's nobody lacking an artfully useful life story? If so, you've hit upon a great game mechanic. Making background an area where a character can win out "or suffer where not" in character construction will apply the discipline you want.

I was interested in a genre where it's normal for the most ordinary people to obtain the greatest power ("Shazam!"), and where even if a character has a colourful and violent background that might seem to qualify them for highly useful skills (Reed Richards), no such free skills are ever "cashed in". Background skills served me poorly. I would have been better off making background consequence and cost free, and merely a matter of picking whatever you liked or thought appropriate to the character and/or the genre.

[John Desmarais]

I'll give you an example from a game - I had a naval captain from the Regency era. he travelled in the Indian Ocean and the European seas. He has knowledge to a reasonable degree of many ports in those areas. He has a basic knowledge of Indian customs. He grew up in the slums of London. he was supposed to have an interest in Indian trading and snuff boxes. And of course he has many Naval skills and knowledges. To represent these with the many 3 point skills was simply prohibitive in a 75+75 character. I had to cut a few naval skills and gloss over them and cut most of the Indian skills. Of course I used some general KSes but they really don't cover so well as something like this would. Plus in general, i don't think that it make ssense in a game about "heroic fiction" to make people invest heavily in the background skills to the exclusion of that which will be more immediately relevant. And moreover it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not, or develop that background as the game proceeds but then of course at least they become tied down to it and the character is enriched and the roleplaying bettered.

My thoughts...

"Knowledge to a reasonable degree" to me sounds like an 11- roll, not an INT roll (although at Heroic level his INT roll it probably not much more than 11) - so I would go 2 not 3 poitns for most. It also sounds like most of these knowledge skills would fall under the "Traveller" skill enhancer, so drop another point off the cost. Depending on the exact mix of the other skills, Scholar may also be apppropriate.

At 1 point each you can buy a lot of background skills, even in a 75+disads game.

[RDU Neil]

My thoughts...

"Knowledge to a reasonable degree" to me sounds like an 11- roll, not an INT roll (although at Heroic level his INT roll it probably not much more than 11) - so I would go 2 not 3 poitns for most. It also sounds like most of these knowledge skills would fall under the "Traveller" skill enhancer, so drop another point off the cost. Depending on the exact mix of the other skills, Scholar may also be apppropriate.

At 1 point each you can buy a lot of background skills, even in a 75+disads game.

Have to agree here... this is what the Skill Enhancers are for...

... or better yet, only put down skills on the sheet as they should exist in a split second pressure situation.

To me, this means most Heroic, widely knowledgable character, have 8 or less in many things... because 8 or less is how well they do in a split second with a gun to their head.

Give 'em a minute... allow a quick Google search (or the settign equivalent) and you quickly push it up to 14 or less.

I do NOT think it is realistic to have multiple skills at full value, yet the plea I get from some players is "My spec-ops guy should have all these skills, 'cause that is what special forces teaches!"

Maybe they should have a lot... at 8 or less, because if you notice, things like bomb disarmament take minutes or hours and special equipment to do well, even by the experts... which means that 8 or less can get bumped up to 12 or less, pretty easily.

A lot of this "skill creep" as I call it can be directly traced back to Steve Long's anal retentive skill lists on Harbinger in the original Dark Champions.

I long for the days when you could just buy "PS: Lawyer" and be done with it, rather than have to list out...

PS: Practiciing Criminal Defense Attourney
KS: Legal Theory
KS: New York State Penal Code
KS: New York City Police Procedures
KS: Second District Court of Manhattan
KS: Number of hairs on the left butt cheek of Judge Wyman in the Second District Court

etc.


Hero Skill System pricing is left over from the days when a 200 point character was amazing if they spent 15 points on skills... because those skills were supposed to be relatively broad in scope for a supers game.

Ramping up things to 350 points so more skills can be bought for supers... well it kinda works... but then Heroic games suffer, as the desire for pedantic detail prices a "generally knowledgeable" character right out the door.

---------

Not even getting into the fact that skills are not balanced in terms of usefulness. PS: skills will never be as useful as Stealth... which keeps you alive ten times a gaming session... but they cost the same. I'd prefer skills to be listed as "Background: Never to be useful in pressure situations" and "Action Skills: The ones that are essential to the character being a cinematic hero."

Action skills cost a heckuva lot more than background.

Then, for someone like Bond... knowledge of wines and vintages would probably end up in Action Skills, because he uses that knowledge in split second pressurs situations... but then James is probably a 500 plus point character, as well.

[SirViss]

I understand the problems of not starting with all the skills a character should have. In the (Champions) camapign I am running, I have taken the liberty of adding up to 10 pts of background skills something like 5 or 6 session after a character joined the campaign. There are often some skills that you forget when write him up, and only think about later.

And I agree with John Desmarais that background skills that probably have no bearing on the campaign should be bought at 11- at most. "Passing Knowledge" to me means 8-, really. Then the GM has to just be a bit generous with freebie skill rolls. "You actually have that skill? No, don't roll, this is what you know."

[RDU Neil]

And I agree with John Desmarais that background skills that probably have no bearing on the campaign should be bought at 11- at most. "Passing Knowledge" to me means 8-, really. Then the GM has to just be a bit generous with freebie skill rolls. "You actually have that skill? No, don't roll, this is what you know."

Yup... as a GM, I rarely require rolls, unless it is critical to the story... a turningpoint... whether they know something or not.

Sometimes, if I assume they will eventually figure it out... the roll comes as "do they figure it out now, or later?" because knowing it now would likely change the course of events, compared to later.

I also try to avoid giving a flat "No" or "You don't know that" kind of answer.

Even if they just have an 8- I'll say something like, "You remember a salesman of snuffboxes mentioning something about that... but it was years ago. You'd have to do some research to try and find out anything specific, but at least you have an idea about where to start looking."

That kind of thing can go far with a player and for adding depth to a skill based character without a ton of investement to have everything at 14 or less.

[Battlestaff]

Here's a suggestion:

Write up your character with the things you think your character needs to begin the game with. Then make a list of background skills that you weren't able to afford that you think your character should have. Discuss this list with your GM. Then if a situation comes up in the game where one of the background skills should come into play, and you have available experience, you can buy the skill at the level you and the GM agreed on prior to play. You could also buy these skills normally as you accumulate experience.

This serves two purposes:
1) You can write up the character you want, even if you can't afford all the background right away; and
2) It gives the GM an idea of your character, so he can plan adventures around your background, or set up situations where these skills can be useful.

[Storn]

I think often GMs ask for rolls to stall for time.

And I love Savage Worlds, but i had the opposite gripe from players. They wanted more defined background skills to list. So they had a stronger sense of their characters. I came up with a house rule that gave them some flexibility and sorta free to not need more pts at chargen.

Granted, Hero can go a bit overboard in its parsing.. as Neil suggested.

[zornwil]

I often have heroic characters with a significant investment in background skills because it would make sense for them to have the stuff, even if it seldom, if ever, comes up in play. What about this: build the character using the available points, and based on the background, negotiate the nonessentials (the background skills that likely serve more to flesh the character out than have much impact on play) with the game master? there would need to be some threshold and the GM could be picky about what he allows and doesn't, but it would allow for those additional things withough giving players additional points to sink into the major goodies that will unbalance the game or make the GM's life difficult. Another option might be to give the player more points (for instance, 100 + 75), but require 25 points be dedicated to background skills (approved by the GM).
I think those are fair solutions, I think the idea of relegating the "non-essentials" to be "0 point background skills" is better than allocating a bunch of points just for those, because the former puts a reasonable but positive onus on the player to come up with that info in a coherent way while the latter is too tempting to just "throw stuff on the page". Not saying that either is black-and-white that way, of course, but that's the tendencies I believe would occur.

[zornwil]

I think often GMs ask for rolls to stall for time.

And I love Savage Worlds, but i had the opposite gripe from players. They wanted more defined background skills to list. So they had a stronger sense of their characters. I came up with a house rule that gave them some flexibility and sorta free to not need more pts at chargen.

Granted, Hero can go a bit overboard in its parsing.. as Neil suggested.
Just as a side note, I don't believe I have ever stalled by asking for a roll.

I just sit there looking stupid instead!

[zornwil]

My thoughts...

"Knowledge to a reasonable degree" to me sounds like an 11- roll, not an INT roll (although at Heroic level his INT roll it probably not much more than 11) - so I would go 2 not 3 poitns for most. It also sounds like most of these knowledge skills would fall under the "Traveller" skill enhancer, so drop another point off the cost. Depending on the exact mix of the other skills, Scholar may also be apppropriate.

At 1 point each you can buy a lot of background skills, even in a 75+disads game.
For me, the problem is/was that even 1 point per port adds up pretty darn fast, and HERO has no construct for an 8- or 11- or whichever basis for grouping these very well. "Ports of the Indian Ocean" and "Ports of the European North Atlantic" are reasonable enough in one way and I did that, but in HERO such interpretations are rather...unclear as to what granularity can be afforded, and HERO is also very specific about these as AKs, not including things like cultural notions and some incidentals like being in the bazaars of India, dealing with beggars, et. al. All valid stuff for a GM to call and this GM in question is high caliber enough for none of this to truly be a problem in play, but it's a poor limitatin upon reflection, I believe.

Regardless, good point about Traveler.

[zornwil]

I've gamemastered superheroes with a system that made a highly respectable quantity of skills free as part of your background, but further skills very expensive and requiring rationalisation.

I hope it will not shock you to learn that the thunderbolts of superheroic power bestowment fell with unerring accuracy on hard-bitten ex-cops, people who grew up right in the city where the game was set and so on, to the exclusion of dedicated philatelists and angsty teenagers whose families had moved cities recently from somewhere irrelevant. If the game was to be in Sydney, nobody had a background that required them to know anything about Perth or Hobart.

In other words, "it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not." It does indeed prod them hard to choose their backgrounds wisely.

Are you trying to simulate a genre where there's nobody lacking an artfully useful life story? If so, you've hit upon a great game mechanic. Making background an area where a character can win out "or suffer where not" in character construction will apply the discipline you want.

I was interested in a genre where it's normal for the most ordinary people to obtain the greatest power ("Shazam!"), and where even if a character has a colourful and violent background that might seem to qualify them for highly useful skills (Reed Richards), no such free skills are ever "cashed in". Background skills served me poorly. I would have been better off making background consequence and cost free, and merely a matter of picking whatever you liked or thought appropriate to the character and/or the genre.
Re the genre, I'd say, it's that way, it's Shelley's playtest for Regency HERO, to spill the beans a bit, though I don't think I'm betraying any confidentiality there. I just feel like I'm name-dropping, but it answers your question!

[Lamrok]

I have a couple of reactions to this.

As a player, I do tend to pile on a lot of background skills since if a situation in-game shows up where the skills would be useful, I feel my character needs to have them. This tends to divert points away from main powers, but, on the other hand, it gives me a better grasp of the character - enough so that I think it helps me come up with alternative approaches to tricky situations. Sometimes I do go overboard, though, and wind up with skills like "Whittlin" on a 14-. Properly corralling background skills is definitely a metagame in itself. The Savage Worlds approach avoids most of this part of character creation, allowing me to focus on the background I want as opposed to the background I have points to pay for. Essentially, as a player, I'm fine either way, though the Savage Worlds approach does save a some time.

As a GM, I'm quite fond of the Savage Worlds approach since it entices players to come up with interesting backgrounds, which give me good spots to hang plot hooks on. I don't have to worry as much about creating situations that spotlight characters who have spent a lot of points on odd skills - I just need to work various backgrounds in from time to time.

[Lamrok]

Another option might be to give the player more points (for instance, 100 + 75), but require 25 points be dedicated to background skills (approved by the GM).

I GM I used to play with used that approach and it worked OK. The main problem was that all background skills aren't created equal (KS: "European History" 18- vs Acrobatics 14-), and it could be hard making a call as to whether a skill should be a background skill or part of the player's regular combat arsenal. Still, the end result was a good step towards making sure everyone had non-combat options, and lowering the penalty on characters with detailed backgrounds.

[Lamrok]

In other words, "it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not." It does indeed prod them hard to choose their backgrounds wisely.

Are you trying to simulate a genre where there's nobody lacking an artfully useful life story? If so, you've hit upon a great game mechanic. Making background an area where a character can win out "or suffer where not" in character construction will apply the discipline you want.

This is a reasonable criticism of the Savage Worlds approach, but I think it is the kind of thing that will setlle down over time.

The humble convenience store clerk might spend his time reading all the magazines in the rack. The couch potato might have an incisive knowledge of police procedures and general gossip. The stamp collector might have an excellent grasp of geography and world history. Bringing these kinds of backgrounds to relevance is just the kind of challenge that would appeal to the group I game with.

[Lord Liaden]

I know it's often decried as a munchkinny approach, but for characters in Heroic-level games who have histories justifying lots of Background Skills, I've sometimes allowed very small Variable Power Pools, Limited just to the types of Skills they could be expected to know. The Active Points in the Pool limit the maximum Skill Roll from getting unreasonable.

Obviously this can be a very point-efficient approach, but the impact of Background Skills on the game is usually under the control of the GM, so it's not difficult to balance.

[Hawksmoor]

I GM I used to play with used that approach and it worked OK. The main problem was that all background skills aren't created equal (KS: "European History" 18- vs Acrobatics 14-), and it could be hard making a call as to whether a skill should be a background skill or part of the player's regular combat arsenal. Still, the end result was a good step towards making sure everyone had non-combat options, and lowering the penalty on characters with detailed backgrounds.

Action skills as RDU Neil called them are not background skills. If the skill is useful in combat it probably is not a background skill.

Hawksmoor

[Lamrok]

Action skills as RDU Neil called them are not background skills. If the skill is useful in combat it probably is not a background skill.

Hawksmoor

That kinda depends on how the GM says the points should be spent. In my GM's case, Acrobatics was allowed. In RDU Neil's case, the example might be "Knowledge of Ancient ancient Babylonian Merchants" vs "Knowledge of Campaign City." Same difference.

[Doc Democracy]

Savage Worlds has a great skills approach in terms of background skills in that you basically define your background and your INT-type ability dictates your rolls with these, with a +2 for things you would have really been knowledgable about.

This is the system I promised to tell you about? :o

I stillhaven't found the time....

[Doc Democracy]

To spread out the availability of skills I have often just given a set of skills based on the background. At other times I have done as RDU Neil suggested and allowed an 8- roll but allowed a +1 for every PS or KS appropriate (+2 if the KS or PS was 15 or better).


Doc

[prestidigitator]

I'll give you an example from a game - I had a naval captain from the Regency era. he travelled in the Indian Ocean and the European seas. He has knowledge to a reasonable degree of many ports in those areas. He has a basic knowledge of Indian customs. He grew up in the slums of London. he was supposed to have an interest in Indian trading and snuff boxes. And of course he has many Naval skills and knowledges. To represent these with the many 3 point skills was simply prohibitive in a 75+75 character. I had to cut a few naval skills and gloss over them and cut most of the Indian skills. Of course I used some general KSes but they really don't cover so well as something like this would. Plus in general, i don't think that it make ssense in a game about "heroic fiction" to make people invest heavily in the background skills to the exclusion of that which will be more immediately relevant. And moreover it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not, or develop that background as the game proceeds but then of course at least they become tied down to it and the character is enriched and the roleplaying bettered.
I haven't done more than gloss over all the responses, but based on your description I would be inclined to give the character:


Cost Skill
---- -----
EM+1 (KS)London: 11-
2 (KS)Seas and Ports of the Eastern Hemisphere: 11-
2 (KS)Indian culture
3 Navigation: 11-
EM (PS)Naval Captain: 11-

...and then maybe a couple of other applicable skills like Trading and Languages. I wouldn't think that 8-15 points are all that prohibitive to a 150-point Heroic character.

[lemming]

Just as a side note, I don't believe I have ever stalled by asking for a roll.

I just sit there looking stupid instead!
I'll back him up on that.




:D

[David Blue]

Re the genre, I'd say, it's that way, it's Shelley's playtest for Regency HERO, to spill the beans a bit, though I don't think I'm betraying any confidentiality there. I just feel like I'm name-dropping, but it answers your question!Yes it does. In that context, this mechanic should work a treat! :)

[zornwil]

This is the system I promised to tell you about? :o

I stillhaven't found the time....
Heh, no worries, I know how that goes, been there (sure I'm there with folks on odd fronts, certainly I haven't done more Unified Framework work), and I don't even have the excuse of offspring!

[zornwil]

I haven't done more than gloss over all the responses, but based on your description I would be inclined to give the character:


Cost Skill
---- -----
EM+1 (KS)London: 11-
2 (KS)Seas and Ports of the Eastern Hemisphere: 11-
2 (KS)Indian culture
3 Navigation: 11-
EM (PS)Naval Captain: 11-

...and then maybe a couple of other applicable skills like Trading and Languages. I wouldn't think that 8-15 points are all that prohibitive to a 150-point Heroic character.
The naval skills include many other things at the level of granularity of HERO, and similarly does "Indian culture' include haggling? Does the interest in snuff boxes rate somewhere? And so on, just that sort of thing. I'm being a bit vague, I know, but I just don't feel like taking the time to wade back through the particular character and indicate what I ended up tossing out just to "make room" that by the same token wasn't unbalancing. I think others have attested to trying to get enough background skills in to say that it's a dilemma of substance for a reasonable audience.

[zornwil]

I'll back him up on that.




:D
I saw that! :tsk:

:lol:

[OddHat]

Savage Worlds has a great skills approach in terms of background skills in that you basically define your background and your INT-type ability dictates your rolls with these, with a +2 for things you would have really been knowledgable about.

Now, of course, SW is a far less granular system. But one of the things I hate about cost-balancing characters in HERO is dealing with all the background skills they should have. This is particularly bad in heroic campaigns where points are scarce (and ought to be).

What if there were a similar approach in HERO? Define background, all such things are a single INT-based skill (no pluses in this system). Bascially you're not allowed to take preexisting other skills (presumably those are "cost-balanced") and let's say you can't take fields of study beyond, say, 1 or 2, with this approach, or some such thing. But you can take areas, cities, etc..

I think we sort of need this in HERO. ESPECIALLY if we want it to be a "heroic fiction" game. For "realism" one can always simply opt out of this rule.

Thoughts?

I'll often allow Professional Skills and Everyman skills to cover this.

As an example, a character I'm working on now drove trucks accross the country before gaining powers. He'll take the appropriate TF, and Profesional Skill: Trucker at 11-. For that PS, I'll let him make basic repairs to trucks and automobiles, use maps correctly, know the basics of trafic laws, know something about US cities and highways; in other words, he'll have a functional 8- in everything that goes into being a truck driver. If the player ever tried to pull something I thought was silly (All truck dirvers know how to build a truck engine from common houshold items!") I'd say no, but I'm happy to let him have as many reasonable applications for his PS as he needs.

If he wanted an encyclopedic knowledge of mechanics or US Highways, he'd have to pay for them, but just enough to do his old job? No problem.

I feel the same way about Jobs like Doctor, Lawyer, or FBI agent. Buy the PS, and I'm happy to let you have everything related to that PS as an Everyman skill.

One more note: I do allow extra time (but not skill levels) to apply to Everyman skills, up to a maximum of 11 or less. I've yet to see a case where this did anything but help move the game along, and if someone else has spent the points to have that 11 or less, well then they'll be 125 times faster than the guy who moved three steps down the time chart to try to get by using his Everyman skill to do the job.

[OddHat]

The naval skills include many other things at the level of granularity of HERO, and similarly does "Indian culture' include haggling? Does the interest in snuff boxes rate somewhere? And so on, just that sort of thing. I'm being a bit vague, I know, but I just don't feel like taking the time to wade back through the particular character and indicate what I ended up tossing out just to "make room" that by the same token wasn't unbalancing. I think others have attested to trying to get enough background skills in to say that it's a dilemma of substance for a reasonable audience.

I'd let him slide by with his PS, an 8- in anything that PS implies and that he hasn't spent points for, and his purchase skills in the areas he wants to be good at.

[prestidigitator]

The naval skills include many other things at the level of granularity of HERO, and similarly does "Indian culture' include haggling? Does the interest in snuff boxes rate somewhere? And so on, just that sort of thing. I'm being a bit vague, I know, but I just don't feel like taking the time to wade back through the particular character and indicate what I ended up tossing out just to "make room" that by the same token wasn't unbalancing. I think others have attested to trying to get enough background skills in to say that it's a dilemma of substance for a reasonable audience.
It may just be my style. In my heroic games, Skills can be just as important as combat ability. In some games, depending on the setting, story, and to some degree the players, Skills can be even more important. I don't see it as inappropriate for a heroic character to spend half or more of their points on Skills. That said, I would likely allow the PS and KS I mentioned relating to those things (Naval Captain and Indian Culture) to cover a decently broad range of things.

Beyond that, a character has personality on top of his or her stats. He is interested in snuff boxes? Cool. I'll try to work that into the story at some point, and he can roleplay it. If he really wants some definable stat, he could buy another full Skill or Familiarity to reflect this (KS - Snuff Boxes) and use it as Complimentary to rolls such as Trading. Even if he didn't, I might give small situational bonuses that have to do with a character's non-bought background, especially if the player actually wrote a background out (I may be rather unconventional in this, because I will often even reward a small bit of Experience to any player who wants to write out a character background).

Otherwise, what Skills do you see as relating to his naval background? Navigation? Climbing? WF - nets? Given the importance I tend to place on Skills in heroic games, I would make the character buy them. If he winds up buying a whole boat-load ( :D ) of KSs and PSs that are unlikely to ever be utilized in the game (which to me says I am doing something wrong as GM), I might suggest more general ones, or I might decrease their cost (even to the point of being Everyman); after all, I just admitted that by supposition they would have little in-game benefit. I would feel the need to grant such boons to each character, though, so I would not be very inclined to use the last approach. More likely I would restructure my campaign a little so the character's backgroud Skills did play a more critical role.

[Lamrok]

I'd let him slide by with his PS, an 8- in anything that PS implies and that he hasn't spent points for, and his purchase skills in the areas he wants to be good at.

The problem here is that he probably wants to be good at the things that are getting lumped together on an 8-. If the character runs across a situation in which one of these background skills is suddenly important, he's going to want to be able to have a better shot at success than an 8- + whatever he can get for extra time.

You can build characters in such a way as to cover skills that will probably be needed. Or, you can build characters with the skills that their background suggests that they should have, whether those skills seem immediately useful or not. The first method saves points. The second method insures that a character will be able to perform as envisioned if the game takes a sudden curve into the area of a character's specialization. If the group suddenly winds up spending three weeks deep in naval battles off the coast of India, Zornwil's character is going to want to have a full complement of skills that supports that aspect of his background.

[OddHat]

The problem here is that he probably wants to be good at the things that are getting lumped together on an 8-. If the character runs across a situation in which one of these background skills is suddenly important, he's going to want to be able to have a better shot at success than an 8- + whatever he can get for extra time.

You can build characters in such a way as to cover skills that will probably be needed. Or, you can build characters with the skills that their background suggests that they should have, whether those skills seem immediately useful or not. The first method saves points. The second method insures that a character will be able to perform as envisioned if the game takes a sudden curve into the area of a character's specialization. If the group suddenly winds up spending three weeks deep in naval battles off the coast of India, Zornwil's character is going to want to have a full complement of skills that supports that aspect of his background.

In which case he'll have to spend the points on them, unless Zorn wants to use a different rules set.

8- gets the character a better than 40% chance if he takes a normal amount of time with the task in question, and 50% or more if he takes extra time. For something that's not a primary part of the characters design, that seems fair to me. If he needs more, IMO he should spend the points. However, it's Zorn's game; if he wants to use any number of other solutions (allowing Overall Levels to apply to Everyman skills, introducing Universal Professional Skill a the same price as Universal Translator, just raising the campaign point totals or giving background skills for free, etc), that's his call.

[Lamrok]

Beyond that, a character has personality on top of his or her stats. He is interested in snuff boxes? Cool. I'll try to work that into the story at some point, and he can roleplay it. If he really wants some definable stat, he could buy another full Skill or Familiarity to reflect this (KS - Snuff Boxes) and use it as Complimentary to rolls such as Trading. Even if he didn't, I might give small situational bonuses that have to do with a character's non-bought background, especially if the player actually wrote a background out (I may be rather unconventional in this, because I will often even reward a small bit of Experience to any player who wants to write out a character background).

That attitude of GM customization is indeed salutory and should be the goal of every GM. But, sometimes the sheer number of players makes it difficult. It is one thing to do this in a game with three players, one of whom has put a lot of effort into background. It is an entirely different thing to look at seven or more players, each of whom has pulled together a meticulously detailed personal history fully deserving of personal attention from the GM. In that case, as a player, I want my skills fully detailed on my character sheet and ready to allude to when the opportunity presents itself. Expecting a GM to be on top of the nuances of all characters in a large group makes the job of GM a bit too big for a casual game, and tends to lead to GM burnout.

[Lamrok]

In which case he'll have to spend the points on them, unles Zorn wants to use a different rules set.

8- gets the character a better than 40% chance if he takes a normal amount of time with the task in question, and 50% or more if he takes extra time. For something that's not a primary part of the characters design, that seems fair to me. If he needs more, IMO he shoul spend the points. However, it's Zorn's game; if he wants to use any number of other solutions (allowing Overall Levels to apply to Everyman skills, introducing Universal Professional Skill a the same price as Universal Translator, just raising the campaign point totals or giving background skills for free, etc), that's his call.

[getting nitpicky - avert eyes if such things are bothersome]
8- is about a 1/4 chance.
The game under discussion is one in which Zornwil is playing, not running, so he can't really change the rules.
[nitpicks done. Sorry, couldn't restrain myself]

[prestidigitator]

That attitude of GM customization is indeed salutory and should be the goal of every GM. But, sometimes the sheer number of players makes it difficult. It is one thing to do this in a game with three players, one of whom has put a lot of effort into background. It is an entirely different thing to look at seven or more players, each of whom has pulled together a meticulously detailed personal history fully deserving of personal attention from the GM. In that case, as a player, I want my skills fully detailed on my character sheet and ready to allude to when the opportunity presents itself. Expecting a GM to be on top of the nuances of all characters in a large group makes the job of GM a bit too big for a casual game, and tends to lead to GM burnout.
I don't think it is uncalled for for the GM to read evey one of those detailed histories, nor do I think it is unreasonable to incorporate some element of one or two characters' background into each gaming session. You aren't going to center your whole story around it, but letting them have their, "moments in the sun," can be enough to make a few Character Points seem more worth it, don't you think? Grabbing all histories and trying to weave every one of them into the story of each session would truly be like juggling a bowlful of M&Ms.

So this is something I would do over a multi-session game. For large, short games, you usually have to get either really loose or really rigid anyway. In such a game, it may be unreasonable to expect very many of any character's Skills to be employed, unless the character is specifically built to match your central theme. Then we perhaps come to the crux of the matter: do you reward characters that are built in such a manner as to fit hand-in-glove with the GM's invisioned storyline? Maybe, if the players have enough information to know what concepts will fit in such a fashion and decide to build something else nonetheless.

I find that as a player in a large gaming group, I can (or have to) myself put forth the effort to incorporate interesting aspects of my character into the game. It is only partially the GM's responsibility, after all. With creative and involved players, even large groups can be detailed enough for everyone.

EDIT: Maybe I can put this more succinctly: if you want your background to have an impact on the game, pay for it, and--with more or less help from the GM--find a way to incorporate it.

[Lamrok]

I find that as a player in a large gaming group, I can (or have to) myself put forth the effort to incorporate interesting aspects of my character into the game. It is only partially the GM's responsibility, after all. With creative and involved players, even large groups can be detailed enough for everyone.

Meandering back on topic...

In large groups, a different dynamic tends to take hold. Since the GM doesn't necessarily have enough of a spotlight to keep everyone covered, players tend to pick up the slack by playing out scenes with no GM interaction. This is a total win for everyone at the table - more fun for players, less pressure on the GM, more material for the GM to work with. But, to really make it work, players need solid backgrounds for their characters. The Savage Worlds approach to backgrounds pretty well guarantees that this will be the case.

[OddHat]

[getting nitpicky - avert eyes if such things are bothersome]
8- is about a 1/4 chance.
The game under discussion is one in which Zornwil is playing, not running, so he can't really change the rules.
[nitpicks done. Sorry, couldn't restrain myself]

So, in that case he takes the extra time to get a 9 or 10. ;)

As to not being able to change the rules, fair enough. He can still talk over the options with his GM.

[zornwil]

In which case he'll have to spend the points on them, unless Zorn wants to use a different rules set.

8- gets the character a better than 40% chance if he takes a normal amount of time with the task in question, and 50% or more if he takes extra time. For something that's not a primary part of the characters design, that seems fair to me. If he needs more, IMO he should spend the points. However, it's Zorn's game; if he wants to use any number of other solutions (allowing Overall Levels to apply to Everyman skills, introducing Universal Professional Skill a the same price as Universal Translator, just raising the campaign point totals or giving background skills for free, etc), that's his call.
The thing is, in a heroic fiction game, unless these are particularly advantageous, the base contention here is that background knowledges are essentially over-priced. Just to cut to the chase of the matter - a rich background is very difficult to handle in HERO with the "regular" rules. I'm not criticizing the ruleset in entirety on the matter as there are some obvious crutches out there (VPPs being a major one, as well as over-generalized KSes that the GM can simply rule are okay to be more granular on occassion).

PS - to add another point, this is more to the fore the more larger-than-life the campaign gets, too. I grant that in a purely "realistic" game the existing system is probably nearly perfect, but it takes more work the less granular/realistic and the more "heroic" the campaign gets.

[Sean Waters]

A couple of thoughts: I'm trying to build a base template character at the moment that allows people to start play quickly. I have a 30 point skill pool at present: you just write in the descriptions for the skills:

PS: Career 11-
PS: Hobby 11-
2 interaction skills
2 agility skills
2 intellect skills
4 background skills (at 11-)

The background skills should generally be related to one or more of the other skills, so if your hobby is wargaming, it is logical to have a KS: Napoleonic History, if one of your interaction skills is seduction it is logical to have KS: chat-up lines. One of the background skills should generally be an AK.

This gives a structure to skill building: otherwise I find that some spend 45 points and some spend 5 points and never the twain shall meet. You can always buy more, but this makes players, in my experience, feel they've done their bit skill-wise and gives a reasonably rounded base of skills. Now this is designed primarily for superhero games, but could be applied to other genres easily enough - afterall a higher proportion of points will be spent on skills in a heroic game.

If everyone is spending a similar number of points on skills it is less irksome for those character-builders if the GM fluffs or expands the definition of a skill to allow characters to know something about the problem in hand.

OK, so that's point one: try and fix it with character build guidelines.

That doesn't really address zornwil's problem though. One of the reasons I am not keen on overdoing the skills is that they can be wasted points: you may never visit half the places you have AKs for, and either the player resents having spent the time to flesh out the character OR the GM feels obliged to set at least one scene in Kualar Lumpa. Neither is ideal.

Can I suggest this quick and dirty fix (an idea similar to OddHat's in some ways): we already have Power Skill - a skill that lets us do the occasional thing with powers that we hadn't thought we would need to at character creation and is pressed on us by the demands of the scenario. Why can we not also have a Character Skill?

Character Skill would be used in much the same way as Power Skill, but would relate to stuff that it is logical fromt eh background and history and general build of the character (including other skills) that the character MIGHT be able to do. It's a kind of catch-all. It shouldn't be overused or an excuse not to buy any other skills, but it would be useful occasionally when you sail into a familiar port...

The only other suggestions I can make are things I have mentioned before in the context of superpowers: Setting Points and Point Mortgaging.

Setting Points mean that you leave a number of character points undefined and you can define them in-game at any time so long as what you use them for is not inconsistent with the previous use of the character. Once they are defined they are 'set' and can not be re-defined. This could be ideal for the sea-captain: he only needs to spend the points on AK Kualar Lumpa when he actually goes there or needs that knowledge. There should be a strict limit on the sumber of Setting Points a new character can be built with.

The other thing is Point Mortgages: allowing characters who logically would have an ability to buy it in-game and pay for it out of any saved XP or as-yet unearned XP (you HAVE TO spend your next 2XP on AK Kualar Lumpa, for example). Like all of these ideas they need to be carefully monitored but should allow far more flexibility that should allow for an enjoyable game.

Some people do not like this approach as, it is argued, a character either knows something or doesn't. I like to think of these 'tricks' as a form of sfx for having the knowledge but not accessing it until the situation presents itself; for example I could find my way around Kenilworth in Warwickshire, where I was brought up, but I haven't 'accessed' that knowledge for years. Logically it should be on my character sheet, but really it is never going to be used unless, for some reason, I go back there (and all my family have left so I probably won't). Moreover if I tried to draw a map of Kenilworth now I would have little success, but if I was actually there the mnemonic cues would re-build my knowledge base quickly and accurately: it is like the information is in a .zip folder, and until something happens to unzip it, I know it is there but I can not use it.

Anyway, I hope some of that helps. :)

[zornwil]

Good stuff, Sean, as always.

On a tangent re Mortgage Points, I've considered something like that in general, purchase as much as you want, if it's beyond a campaign limit you just don't get XPs (or, at least, a substantial portion per adventure) until the mortgage is paid off. I allow this anyway for small purchases, but thinking it could just be wide open and some PCs are simply more experienced already, basically.

But by the time I really have a reason to do this, I'll probably go points-less anyway.

[Markdoc]

I agree with the comments on "skill roll inflation". Having character skills appropriate to background and genre is key (for me - as a GM I'm a bit of a skills martinet). But in my opinion, most people wildly overestimate what is needed to make a "useful" or "realistic" skill roll. You can see my skills rant here, if you want.

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#NewSystemofSkillPricing

Basically, if a character wishes to be *good* at a skill then he needs to spend points on it. But for most instances - especially background - an 8- roll is plenty. If the character in question comes from London, then AK: London is part of his (free) everyman skillset - he doesn't need AK: London 11- unless he wants to be a London maven, familiar with its streets and twisty mazy backways. A navy man with a London background would know the docks of the Isle of Dogs, and where to get a sounding man at Greenwich but would he necessarily know the name of the slumlord who owns the rookery behind the docks, or where to find a certain brothel in that area? One hopes not! A Character with a roguish background might know that, as would any local, but would not necessarily know anything about the order of shipping in the roads, or what taxi fare to the village of Hampstead costs. Sounds like 8- to me....

Likewise *I* know that haggling is not just the rule in an indian market, but also that one does not haggle in an Indian department store - and I don't kid myself that I have KS:India at any level. KS: Asia at 8- maybe. If you buy a bunch of skills at 8- and perhaps a skill enhancer, 10-12 points can give your character a depth of background skill sufficient for most games, and relatively realistic, whilst at the same time allowing them to develop their particular forté without concern that everyone else has the same or an overlapping skill set.

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

I agree with the comments on "skill roll inflation". Having character skills appropriate to background and genre is key (for me - as a GM I'm a bit of a skills martinet). But in my opinion, most people wildly overestimate what is needed to make a "useful" or "realistic" skill roll. You can see my skills rant here, if you want.

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#NewSystemofSkillPricing

Basically, if a character wishes to be *good* at a skill then he needs to spend points on it. But for most instances - especially background - an 8- roll is plenty. If the character in question comes from London, then AK: London is part of his (free) everyman skillset - he doesn't need AK: London 11- unless he wants to be a London maven, familiar with its streets and twisty mazy backways. A navy man with a London background would know the docks of the Isle of Dogs, and where to get a sounding man at Greenwich but would he necessarily know the name of the slumlord who owns the rookery behind the docks, or where to find a certain brothel in that area? One hopes not! A Character with a roguish background might know that, as would any local, but would not necessarily know anything about the order of shipping in the roads, or what taxi fare to the village of Hampstead costs. Sounds like 8- to me....

Likewise *I* know that haggling is not just the rule in an indian market, but also that one does not haggle in an Indian department store - and I don't kid myself that I have KS:India at any level. KS: Asia at 8- maybe. If you buy a bunch of skills at 8- and perhaps a skill enhancer, 10-12 points can give your character a depth of background skill sufficient for most games, and relatively realistic, whilst at the same time allowing them to develop their particular forté without concern that everyone else has the same or an overlapping skill set.

cheers, Mark

Excellent post.

Can I just mention my wife's haggling technique? it has confused and counfounded, and in several cases reduced to tears apparently hardened traders in various parts of the world.

It seems to consist of...well...not haggling. You go ask them how much they want, snort derisively then offer something very low. OK so far, that's how it goes in most cases. The trader then concedes something and Tammy...well sort of stares at him and repeats her original 'offer'. She'll let this go on for a little while until the trader feels it incumbent upon him to explain how you haggle. She listens carefully, repeats her original offer and then walks away, usually pursued by the poor chap, who has had to leave the immediate environs of his stall, which clearly puts him on the back foot.

Nine times out of ten she gets what she wants at the price she originally offered. I wind up squirming with embarassment even though I usually observe from a safe distance, but by golly it works. She, nedless to say, appears completely oblivious to this flouting of technique and tradition.

The point, I suppose, of this anecdote it that even a single skill has many manifestations, and two people witht he same skill at the same level will not have the same knowledge and ability: only, on average, similar results.

This can make it very difficult for a GM to make decisions fairly about skill use. There isn't an easy solution: the only approach I can suggest is consistency, so that even if skills vary in value between campaigns, withjin a campaign your AK: London Docks at 8- is worth about the same as some scurrilous rogue's KS: London Knocking-Shops at 8-. :)

[Markdoc]

Can I just mention my wife's haggling technique? it has confused and counfounded, and in several cases reduced to tears apparently hardened traders in various parts of the world.

Your wife is lucky. I simply can't haggle, which given the amount of time I spend in places where haggling is the norm puts me at a severe disadvantage...

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Buy it as a superskill in a focus (wife) :D











....thank goodness she doesn't read these boards....

[OddHat]

The thing is, in a heroic fiction game, unless these are particularly advantageous, the base contention here is that background knowledges are essentially over-priced. Just to cut to the chase of the matter - a rich background is very difficult to handle in HERO with the "regular" rules. I'm not criticizing the ruleset in entirety on the matter as there are some obvious crutches out there (VPPs being a major one, as well as over-generalized KSes that the GM can simply rule are okay to be more granular on occassion).

PS - to add another point, this is more to the fore the more larger-than-life the campaign gets, too. I grant that in a purely "realistic" game the existing system is probably nearly perfect, but it takes more work the less granular/realistic and the more "heroic" the campaign gets.

Good posts from Markdoc and Sean, as always.

Zorn, I'm not sure I agree here. Just imo, but I think that the existing rules work well enough to allow a rich background if the GM is willing to let broad PS, KS, and AK trickle down into more specific applications. If you do have PS:Ship's Captain, it's fairly intuitive that you should be able to perform all the basic tasks needed for that skill (navigation, haggling over the price of supplies, management, at least a working knowledge of ship maintenance, etc), at least in that setting. I prefer an "OK, you can do that" approach with trickle down skills, an 8- with logically related items or a penalty to the base skill (-5 per step down would be by-the-book), but other methods work as well.

If the problem you're seeing is that characters can't reach larger-than-life levels of competence in heroic games, I'd say that the easiest answer is to give them a nice chunk of AK, PS, and KS for free (or, if the GM prefers, a block of points that can only be spent on such skills). If that means 200 point characters, fair enough; that's the level you'll need for a more cinematic campaign.

[Black Rose]

For me, the problem is/was that even 1 point per port adds up pretty darn fast, and HERO has no construct for an 8- or 11- or whichever basis for grouping these very well. "Ports of the Indian Ocean" and "Ports of the European North Atlantic" are reasonable enough in one way and I did that, but in HERO such interpretations are rather...unclear as to what granularity can be afforded, and HERO is also very specific about these as AKs, not including things like cultural notions and some incidentals like being in the bazaars of India, dealing with beggars, et. al. All valid stuff for a GM to call and this GM in question is high caliber enough for none of this to truly be a problem in play, but it's a poor limitatin upon reflection, I believe.

Regardless, good point about Traveler.

Considering an AK: home territory 8- is included in a character's Everyman Skills, and that would be considered acceptable for Joe "I've lived here all my life" Public, I'd say having AK: Ports of the Indian Ocean at 11- would be more than adequate for knowing most basic stuff. If you have a habit of wanting to know very specific details about a port city (alleys to duck down to lose thugs, which beggar can get you in good with an apothecary who will sell poisons, etc), then you want to be more specific in your skill buying.

BTJMO,

Black Rose

[RDU Neil]

I agree with the comments on "skill roll inflation". Having character skills appropriate to background and genre is key (for me - as a GM I'm a bit of a skills martinet). But in my opinion, most people wildly overestimate what is needed to make a "useful" or "realistic" skill roll. You can see my skills rant here, if you want.

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#NewSystemofSkillPricing

Basically, if a character wishes to be *good* at a skill then he needs to spend points on it. But for most instances - especially background - an 8- roll is plenty. If the character in question comes from London, then AK: London is part of his (free) everyman skillset - he doesn't need AK: London 11- unless he wants to be a London maven, familiar with its streets and twisty mazy backways. A navy man with a London background would know the docks of the Isle of Dogs, and where to get a sounding man at Greenwich but would he necessarily know the name of the slumlord who owns the rookery behind the docks, or where to find a certain brothel in that area? One hopes not! A Character with a roguish background might know that, as would any local, but would not necessarily know anything about the order of shipping in the roads, or what taxi fare to the village of Hampstead costs. Sounds like 8- to me....

Likewise *I* know that haggling is not just the rule in an indian market, but also that one does not haggle in an Indian department store - and I don't kid myself that I have KS:India at any level. KS: Asia at 8- maybe. If you buy a bunch of skills at 8- and perhaps a skill enhancer, 10-12 points can give your character a depth of background skill sufficient for most games, and relatively realistic, whilst at the same time allowing them to develop their particular forté without concern that everyone else has the same or an overlapping skill set.

cheers, Mark

I must agree... as he said what I said, only he said it better!

[RDU Neil]

Good posts from Markdoc and Sean, as always.

Zorn, I'm not sure I agree here. Just imo, but I think that the existing rules work well enough to allow a rich background if the GM is willing to let broad PS, KS, and AK trickle down into more specific applications. If you do have PS:Ship's Captain, it's fairly intuitive that you should be able to perform all the basic tasks needed for that skill (navigation, haggling over the price of supplies, management, at least a working knowledge of ship maintenance, etc), at least in that setting. I prefer an "OK, you can do that" approach with trickle down skills, an 8- with logically related items or a penalty to the base skill (-5 per step down would be by-the-book), but other methods work as well.

If the problem you're seeing is that characters can't reach larger-than-life levels of competence in heroic games, I'd say that the easiest answer is to give them a nice chunk of AK, PS, and KS for free (or, if the GM prefers, a block of points that can only be spent on such skills). If that means 200 point characters, fair enough; that's the level you'll need for a more cinematic campaign.

And another good post! Totally agree, here. As a GM, I prefer to have fewer, more general skills, and allow the trickle down effect... but if a player truly wants an omni-competent skill maven... they spend the points. I've easily built 300 plus point Fantasy Hero characters who were really good in combat, but nothing super-level... they just had a great deal of skils and knowledges and contacts etc., to make them unrealistically competent in many, many areas.

Maybe there is a dislike for the general points inflation that Hero has suffered over the years... but at this point, the game has become diverse and granular enough that to have truly "heroic" level chararacters (that feel like fictional heroes) then you are spending almost as many points as you would on Supers... you just don't have the heights of DC or superpowers and such... it goes into skill levels and knowledge and background.

[Lamrok]

Zorn, I'm not sure I agree here. Just imo, but I think that the existing rules work well enough to allow a rich background if the GM is willing to let broad PS, KS, and AK trickle down into more specific applications. If you do have PS:Ship's Captain, it's fairly intuitive that you should be able to perform all the basic tasks needed for that skill (navigation, haggling over the price of supplies, management, at least a working knowledge of ship maintenance, etc), at least in that setting. I prefer an "OK, you can do that" approach with trickle down skills, an 8- with logically related items or a penalty to the base skill (-5 per step down would be by-the-book), but other methods work as well.

That's fine until you pick up the dice and try to make that 8- navigation roll to keep the ship off the rocks. Or until you match your 8- haggling skill against a 12- haggling skill.

Skill inflation happens because some character concepts shouldn't miss certain skill rolls. If you have the skill on an 8-, most GMs are going to expect you to roll an 8- to use it. You can hem and haw about extra time, but sometimes you don't have extra time, and sometimes what the player thinks is "extra" time is the amount of time the GM considers to be "base" time.

My take on what the numbers mean goes ike this:

8- is a non-serious hobby. A class taken in the area (as per the "Cramming" skill). A supporting skill that the character has some measure of familiarity with.

11- is good enough to make a living.

14- is expert

above 14- allows the character to be an expert under increasingly adverse circumstances.

These are the benchmarks I look at when deciding what level skills should be placed at.

If you are trying to reflect characters from fiction, 14- is pretty much the standard. It is high enough to expect that you will make rolls when needed if there are no negative modifiers. Most fictional characters tend to be "expert" at the things they are expected to do - that's what gives them the inclination to be involved in the sorts of stories most GMs want to tell. No one wants to be on a ship helmed by a captain who expects to make it through the tricky schoals during a storm with an 8- navigation skill. No player wants to be the captain who has to tell the crew that he isn't up to the task, so they will need to spend a few days so he can take extra time on the roll. That just isn't consistent with the genre examples most GMs are looking to follow.

Languages are completely broken. Who wants to spend 20 points on langauges on the off chance they will actually need German during a story? My character in Zornwil's game is Chinese - he is fluent in Mandarin (4 points). Over the course of nearly fifty sessions, this has never been a factor. Even when the group has been to China, the rest of the gang had ways of dealing with the language barrier that worked just as well as 4 points of the appropriate langauage. Otherwise, the adventure would have tilted too far in the direction of my character and the rst of the players would have spent hours just standing around. So, what is the real point of the expenditure? I spent the points because it matched the background I had in mind, but taking +2 to an attack would have been about 30x as useful. (I don't fault Zornwil here - I don't think there would have been any other way to run the advanture in a way that was interesting to the whole group. I only bring this up because his is the only game I've put that many sessions into.) By Oddhat's example, it would seem that 2 points of "PS: Chinese Culture" could have covered this. I just don't see any GM looking at my background and character sheet and not saying "Isn't Mandarin your native language? Why isn't it on your sheet?"

Another example. My character in the game Zornwil is using to illustrate his point is a French dandy. He has both KS: Fashion and PS: Fashion. This allows him to discuss fashion and to dress himself well. Should overlapping KS, PS, and SS be eliminated? I assigned those points to let the GM know that I am serious about those aspects of the character, and that he should be viewed as a character who is something of an expert in these matters. In practice, these skills aren't going to save lives or go very far to advance a plot (except under fairly limited circumstances). On the other hand, they make the character more fun to play - there's no doubting the exact level of his fashion expertise, and the GM is more than happy to play along with this. Without the points, I strongly expect the effect would be far different. In effect, what I'm saying here is that spending points is also a way for a player to let the GM know that a certain aspect of a character is important.

The bottom line is that, after more than 20 years of this, playing with some really excellent players and GMs, I just don't think that a player can expect for the various point of his background to be useful, or to be taken seriously unless the player sinks enough points in them to properly impress the point on the GM (who is busy coordinating a lot of players, backgrounds, and skills, as well as running an fairly complex story) Some GMs say they can do this, but, quite frankly, I simply do not believe it.

[OddHat]

That's fine until you pick up the dice and try to make that 8- navigation roll to keep the ship off the rocks. Or until you match your 8- haggling skill against a 12- haggling skill.

-SNIP-

The bottom line is that, after more than 20 years of this, playing with some really excellent players and GMs, I just don't think that a player can expect for the various point of his background to be useful, or to be taken seriously unless the player sinks enough points in them to properly impress the point on the GM (who is busy coordinating a lot of players, backgrounds, and skills, as well as running an fairly complex story) Some GMs say they can do this, but, quite frankly, I simply do not believe it.

I've been doing this more than 20 years myself, playing with some great groups, and I respect your experience. Still, it differs from my own.

I don't require the navigating captain to make an 8 or less roll to keep off of the rocks in normal circumstances, though I might in a serious storm; If he's expecting storms, he should hire a navigator, or buy the skill. As to haggling, the supplier will likely have an 11 or less, and our captain who has not bothered to buy his own haggling skill up will get a poor deal. If the player wanted to be an expert haggler, as oppossed to just able to get by, he should have spent the points. I don't see this as a problem, unless the GM and the players have different expectations about the level of competence characters will have for free.

As to what skills mean (and I am aware that this is a debated ubject), I see it as:
8- = Everyday tasks and basic skill use do not require rolls, more complex tasks do.

11- = Profesional level of competence. You don't need to roll for everyday tasks or even moderately difficult tasks, but you do need to roll to do something exceptionally tricky or to finish a task exceptionally quickly.

14- = Expert.

As to impressing the GM with the importance of part of your back story, if you've paid for a professional skill I'll let you use it, or anything related to it, and I won't always ask for a roll. If you need to impress me and the world's NPCs more, you are welcome to spend the points. ;)

[Lamrok]

I guess some of the problem stems from the fact that if you design a character who is an expert at Flower Arrangement, he probably pays more points for it than if he'd decided to be competent with persuasion (which can generally be used to significant effect in nearly every session).

Part of the point of a system like Hero is that costs should at least try to match utility - but there's no clear way to express a character who is well versed in something that isn't very useful. Perhaps utility-driven limitations should be applied to background skills of this type. For instance, "Flower Arrangement" might merit a -2 lim. Sanskrit might be a -2, but Spanish would be -0 (in many, if not most, games.)

[OddHat]

I guess some of the problem stems from the fact that if you design a character who is an expert at Flower Arrangement, he probably pays more points for it than if he'd decided to be competent with persuasion (which can generally be used to significant effect in nearly every session).

Part of the point of a system like Hero is that costs should at least try to match utility - but there's no clear way to express a character who is well versed in something that isn't very useful. Perhaps utility-driven limitations should be applied to background skills of this type. For instance, "Flower Arrangement" might merit a -2 lim. Sanskrit might be a -2, but Spanish would be -0 (in many, if not most, games.)

This I mostly agree with. You get a slight break on background skills (+1 per 1 point instead of 2, and the skill modifiers), but it still leaves you with a character who has to choose between 5 points in a skill that may never see use or another level with DCV, which will be constantly useful. It's something I often find fairly cheesy ways to get past.

[zornwil]

I see an interesting dichotomy. I think Lamrok's numbers above re 8-, 11-, 14-, and what they mean reflects the common usage and where a large number of not majority of GMs think. It's where I think most people play and - most importantly - where play experience has set the bar.

OTOH, from a realistic perspective (whatever that is... :) ), I do think that someone good enough to make a living is 8-, don't know if I'd call an expert an 11- but certainly that's a master, and 14- is astronomically good. I say this because almost nobody responds in HERO terms off the cuff, and because the scale of reality includes a ton of prep most of the time and under pressure I think that in one second only masters will get it right around 60% of the time.

The problem is the game isn't about reality. My character is sort of Horatio Hornblower, with some clear distinctions from that base, and that is how I take the campaign and how I see most characters in terms of the level of heroism, even if, as in one character, they "simply" are a matronly woman who runs the household affairs. I expect that character to have an encyclopedic knowledge in many areas on a moment's notice, just as mine should regarding experential skills. And in my experience most GMs play to a level where "encyclopedic" is 14-.

And in the real world played via HERO, you can be encyclopedic in a few seconds, and that's not realistic actually, anyway. "Extra time" is an odd construct in hobby and background skills whether realistic or romantic. And most GMs won't give you extra time, partly because it's a bit boring and because, they'll say, taking 12 or 18 extra seconds shouldn't make a difference if you know how to haggle (for example).

The real problem here, though, as we've been approaching it, is that we're talking about non-plot skills, or skills that are mostly non-plot, anyway. These are mostly color and to the degree they're used they may be for a minor edge in situations but mainly as litlte hooks.

Paying to be the best floral arranger in the world (presumably a 16- or such) is hardly worthwhile in almost any genre except a few niche Japanese or other games. But what if you want to be? Is it really worth that investment, when faced with the realities of a campaign? Remember, we're talking about things that are almost never going to come into play - the campaign I'm referencing merely as an example was to be specifically set in England and remain there.

Now that I have a little time, here's my character, minus some items inappropriate to share due to playtest/prerelease considerations:

<iframe src="http://www.realschluss.org/Cornelius%20Fox.HTML" width="100%" height="800"></iframe>[/QUOTE]

Sacrificed - Climbing (all that climbing of the mast), a recommended new Regency Naval skill, Indian haggling, any sort of Indian artifact stuff for flavor, any other hobbies. That's just stuff I REMEMBER leaving off, none of it plot-relevant but all too expensive. That's also setting aside that the 12- skill for Regency that I can't say should be something he's EXTREMELy good at but I decided to recast. He was supposed to be a better fighter all around, but I made some cuts there to afford some of the skills he already has. I needed several of the realistic perks given he's a Naval Captain of the Napoleonic Wars. I didn't do a catch-all "Naval skills" as that would be fairly broad and to my mind a bit unfair, though the GM probably would have permitted; that still doesn't address the non-plot background areas.

By the way, how do you guys buy Latin as a language? It's only read, not spoken, so it's hard to use the HERO scale.

[zornwil]

Hmmm, on a tangent, maybe "his natural aptitude and charm endeared the hardened sailors to the boy" was a poor turn of phrase... :eek: ;)

Heh.

[Lamrok]

And here is my character:

Le Comte de Chareau

Val Char Cost
10 STR 0
14 DEX 12
8 CON -4
8 BODY -4
13 INT 3
8 EGO -4
18 PRE 8
14 COM 2
3 PD 1
2 ED 0
3 SPD 6
4 REC 0
16 END 0
17 STUN 0

[Stats stripped down to what he actually needs]

7" RUN 2
2" SWIM 0
4" LEAP 2

Some swashbuckling modifications. I like for characters in games like this to have a 4" half move.

Characteristics Cost: 24

Cost Skill
3 Acting 13-
3 Bribery 13-
3 Climbing 12-
3 Concealment 12-
3 Contortionist 12-
3 Regency Skill 12-
3 Jack of All Trades
1 1) PS: Baker (2 Active Points) 11-
1 2) PS: Farmer (2 Active Points) 11-
4 3) PS: Fashion Sense (5 Active Points) 14-
1 4) PS: Fisherman (2 Active Points) 11-
1 5) PS: French soldier (2 Active Points) 11-
2 6) PS: Vintner (3 Active Points) 12-
7 Disguise 14-
3 High Society 13-
3 Scholar
1 1) KS: Diseases and Maladies (2 Active Points) 11-
1 2) KS: European History (2 Active Points) 11-
1 3) KS: Fashion (2 Active Points) 11-
1 4) KS: French aristocracy (2 Active Points) 11-
1 5) KS: Who's who in English society (2 Active Points) 11-
1 6) KS: Wine (2 Active Points) 11-
2 CK: Paris 11-
1 Language: French (imitate dialects) (5 Active Points)
4 Language: English (idiomatic)
3 Lockpicking 12-
3 Mimicry 12-
3 Persuasion 13-
3 Riding 12-
20 +2 Overall
3 Stealth 12-
3 Streetwise 13-
1 TF: Two-Wheeled Muscle-Powered Ground Vehicles
3 WF: Early Firearms, Blades
Skills Cost: 99

Cost Perk
10 Follower - valet
4 Regency perk
10 Money: Wealthy

Perks Cost: 24

Cost Talent
3 Regency Talent

Talents Cost: 3

Total Character Cost: 150

Disads are pretty much setting-specific.

Disadvantage Points: 75
Base Points: 75
Experience Required: 0
Total Experience Available: 0
Experience Unspent: 0

Background is shrouded in secrecy - to players anyway. Suffice it to say that he spent a lot of time helping French nobles escape Mme Guillotine.

The only compromise on this sheet is the somewhat short shrift given to combat abilities. His two overall levels help somewhat, but he's a character much more at home outside of combat. Other than that, he has every skill he should have at the level he should have it. When combat rolls around he's happy to yield to one of the "vigorous young fellows" in the group. (Le Comte is in his early 60's, though he can apparently still clamber up a rope ladder better than any English sailor in the group ;) )

Some of his skills relate to his personal history, some are essentially complementary to his disguise skill. He's designed to reflect a character from "The Scarlett Pimpernel", with an emphasis on non-combat swashbuckling situations - Le Comte would rather escape than fight.

[Lamrok]

I see an interesting dichotomy. I think Lamrok's numbers above re 8-, 11-, 14-, and what they mean reflects the common usage and where a large number of not majority of GMs think. It's where I think most people play and - most importantly - where play experience has set the bar.

Actually, I think those numbers came out of a book. I don't have any sources at hand right now, but I don't think I (or Oddhat) made them up.


OTOH, from a realistic perspective (whatever that is... :) ), I do think that someone good enough to make a living is 8-, don't know if I'd call an expert an 11- but certainly that's a master, and 14- is astronomically good. I say this because almost nobody responds in HERO terms off the cuff, and because the scale of reality includes a ton of prep most of the time and under pressure I think that in one second only masters will get it right around 60% of the time.

That depends on how you set the base time for skill use, and how you set the bar for allocating skill penalties. That ton of prep might just be part of the base time. If you do without it, perhaps you take a penalty on the skill.


And in the real world played via HERO, you can be encyclopedic in a few seconds, and that's not realistic actually, anyway. "Extra time" is an odd construct in hobby and background skills whether realistic or romantic. And most GMs won't give you extra time, partly because it's a bit boring and because, they'll say, taking 12 or 18 extra seconds shouldn't make a difference if you know how to haggle (for example).

Reality isn't a necessary component in heroic fiction. In most heroic fiction (including movies) characters tend to be able to wield skills in a small fraction of the time it would take to perform them in reality. Pacing is more important than a strict adherence to reality. I prefer that games follow a similar model.


Paying to be the best floral arranger in the world (presumably a 16- or such) is hardly worthwhile in almost any genre except a few niche Japanese or other games. But what if you want to be? Is it really worth that investment, when faced with the realities of a campaign? Remember, we're talking about things that are almost never going to come into play - the campaign I'm referencing merely as an example was to be specifically set in England and remain there.

Perhaps perks could provide some relief here. The best flower arranger in the city (when I wrote that I was actually thinking of Dion O'Bannion, "Flower arranger for the Chicago mob") might be worth a 1 point perk.



By the way, how do you guys buy Latin as a language? It's only read, not spoken, so it's hard to use the HERO scale.

Just because most people don't speak latin doesn't mean they can't (as underscored by recent events in the Vatican.) If two characters know latin, they should be able to converse in it. For most purposes, all you need is fluency, though - anything higher is a waste (this is how I have bought it in the past, including in your own game. :) )

[OddHat]

Actually, I think those numbers came out of a book. I don't have any sources at hand right now, but I don't think I (or Oddhat) made them up.
Mine come from 5thER, p.43, however I'm being slightly more generous as far as when not to bother roling. I also think that characters should be portrayed as competent most of the time; my own style tends to be to reflect that (and speed up play) by not bothering to ask for a roll for what I would consider a routine task at that skill level.

[Black Rose]

I see an interesting dichotomy. I think Lamrok's numbers above re 8-, 11-, 14-, and what they mean reflects the common usage and where a large number of not majority of GMs think. It's where I think most people play and - most importantly - where play experience has set the bar.

OTOH, from a realistic perspective (whatever that is... :) ), I do think that someone good enough to make a living is 8-, don't know if I'd call an expert an 11- but certainly that's a master, and 14- is astronomically good. I say this because almost nobody responds in HERO terms off the cuff, and because the scale of reality includes a ton of prep most of the time and under pressure I think that in one second only masters will get it right around 60% of the time.

When it comes to skill rolls, I tend to follow Markdoc's guidelines, which are pretty close to yours. An 8- is enough to do the job, most of the time, but you might be in trouble if a crisis hits (come on, any kind of penalty on an 8- roll is going to hit you hard). An 11- is someone who is good at their job; not phenomenal, not envelope-pushing, but damn good. This is the guy the boss relies upon to get things done, the one you know can handle it. A 14- is phenomenal, or at least the best most people are likely to meet.

Now, all that is for a heroic setting; superheroic settings let you have things like KS: Quantum Physics 18- and still not get scouted by every world-class university, multinational corporation and government on Earth. Frankly, if you've got a skill at this level, you should be getting offers from alien races we don't even know about.


The problem is the game isn't about reality. My character is sort of Horatio Hornblower, with some clear distinctions from that base, and that is how I take the campaign and how I see most characters in terms of the level of heroism, even if, as in one character, they "simply" are a matronly woman who runs the household affairs. I expect that character to have an encyclopedic knowledge in many areas on a moment's notice, just as mine should regarding experential skills. And in my experience most GMs play to a level where "encyclopedic" is 14-.

A 14- being "encyclopedic" makes a lot of sense to me. Come on, you've got a better than 90% chance to succeed, right off the bat. And that roll is only going to be made during "challenging situations". How often is that? I'd say one time in three, maybe four. So really, you're going to succeed at any tasks involving the skill:

100% of 2/3 = ~66.66%.........................non-challenging situations
90% of 1/3 = 30.25%.........................challenging situations
Total Success Rate = 96.95%

Of course, the non-challenging/challenging ratios are off the top of my head, but I think they are pretty reasonable.


By the way, how do you guys buy Latin as a language? It's only read, not spoken, so it's hard to use the HERO scale.

Especially considering the Regency period, it was spoken; not as a living language, granted, but it was the language of educated gentlemen. I'd go for Fluent Conversation, with Literacy if it's not standard. Actually, I'd say you have to pay for the Literacy first, along with the Basic Conversation. There's really no reason to have it much past that.

[Markdoc]

For the language question, I allow a 1 pt "read/write only" option. Most people who can read latin can also speak it, so latin was perhaps not the best example. Members of the curia for example, do converse in Latin and I have known Jesuits who do also.

However, I don't know of anyone who can speak ancient egyptian, though I know people who can read hieroglyphs - even fluently. This option also comes in handy for that pesky 1 point cross-family familiarity in languages. Having Danish gives me 1 point in German (apparently), but in truth I can't really understand much german (unless the speak slowly and very simply) and I can't speak it at all. On the other hand, I *can* puzzle my way through a german text as long as it's not too complicated (a newspaper article, say).

Cheers, Mark

[Lamrok]

Mine come from 5thER, p.43, however I'm being slightly more generous as far as when not to bother roling. I also think that characters should be portrayed as competent most of the time; my own style tends to be to reflect that (and speed up play) by not bothering to ask for a roll for what I would consider a routine task at that skill level.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about my personal GM style here. As a GM, I don't ask people to roll too often - missed rolls on routine tasks can bounce the game off in directions it doesn't need to go. In the last Hero session I ran, (a mystery, which required a lot of player investigation,) I think I asked for a grand total of three rolls - everything else was deemed too routine to need a roll - posession of a skill at adequate level was sufficient to gain access to the information sought.

As a player, I have no way of knowing how a GM is going to deal with the issue, so it is best to build a character who can function adequately if a GM decides you need to roll frequently. The guidelines in the book spell out the baseline for where skills should be, and I tend to keep those in mind when spending points.

Most players tend to be pretty keen on rolling dice, though. So, GMs that hand-wave most skills aren't necessarily making the game more entertaining. You need to be sure that you are gaining something for the players when you do this.

[zornwil]

Actually, I think those numbers came out of a book. I don't have any sources at hand right now, but I don't think I (or Oddhat) made them up.

That depends on how you set the base time for skill use, and how you set the bar for allocating skill penalties. That ton of prep might just be part of the base time. If you do without it, perhaps you take a penalty on the skill.

Reality isn't a necessary component in heroic fiction. In most heroic fiction (including movies) characters tend to be able to wield skills in a small fraction of the time it would take to perform them in reality. Pacing is more important than a strict adherence to reality. I prefer that games follow a similar model.

Agreed, I'm just referencing how people tend to want to talk about "realism", and it's my (sometimes-mistaken, depending on the person) assumption, depending on their tone, that they mean realism without quotes and without respect to genre specifically. Some people do, some don't. But I misunderstood that the conversation above was real-world, not HERO-world. I'm fine with the HERO-world definition, but I think it betrays the difference, AND I think that it begs the higher character competency - a character shouldn't simply (in many more romantic adventures) be "good enough to make a living", they should be somewhere between that and world class expert. IMHO.


Perhaps perks could provide some relief here. The best flower arranger in the city (when I wrote that I was actually thinking of Dion O'Bannion, "Flower arranger for the Chicago mob") might be worth a 1 point perk.

It's a good idea. I'd suggest it'd be worthwhile for the rules to embody something like "trivial skills" as a 1 point Perk that really doesn't need/require rolls except in odd situations, in which case they can be as per GM fiat. That would probably go a long way towards all sorts of resolutions, even if it opens a munchkin door. All it needs, though, is a STOP sign and a point that a trivial skill does not affect plotlines except maybe once in a very rare occassion (such as a year of gaming - I could see this for many background areas).


Just because most people don't speak latin doesn't mean they can't (as underscored by recent events in the Vatican.) If two characters know latin, they should be able to converse in it. For most purposes, all you need is fluency, though - anything higher is a waste (this is how I have bought it in the past, including in your own game. :) )

I misphrased my question - I meant to say that (as Black Rose mentioned) you can't learn Latin without reading it (realistically in most genres anyway, an ancient character in a modern setting or an ancient character could of course speak without reading it). And the question then is how people buy it, and whether people buy fluency + literacy (thx much, Black Rose) or just fluency or what. I pretty much ignore literacy in general and just assume it, although I wouldn't of course in a genre where it mattered.

As to le Comte, by the way, it was a shame we weren't able to play at the same time as I missed the first adventure and you the second - I was looking forward to a particular rivalry that would have occurred, and not so much the French/English thing (if you see his background, you probably figured it out and what Regency Perk I bought...bwa ha ha...- I did so without knowing, btw, that this was the same ability your character had, as I didn't really connect that when you wrote "dandy" you meant it in the true genre sense and the perk that brings).

[zornwil]

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about my personal GM style here. As a GM, I don't ask people to roll too often - missed rolls on routine tasks can bounce the game off in directions it doesn't need to go. In the last Hero session I ran, (a mystery, which required a lot of player investigation,) I think I asked for a grand total of three rolls - everything else was deemed too routine to need a roll - posession of a skill at adequate level was sufficient to gain access to the information sought.

As a player, I have no way of knowing how a GM is going to deal with the issue, so it is best to build a character who can function adequately if a GM decides you need to roll frequently. The guidelines in the book spell out the baseline for where skills should be, and I tend to keep those in mind when spending points.

Most players tend to be pretty keen on rolling dice, though. So, GMs that hand-wave most skills aren't necessarily making the game more entertaining. You need to be sure that you are gaining something for the players when you do this.
I like to roll dice. I miss it in PBEMs though it's eminently logical of course not to do so. And rolling virtually is just ho-hum.

[Lamrok]

I like to roll dice. I miss it in PBEMs though it's eminently logical of course not to do so. And rolling virtually is just ho-hum.

I like rolling dice also - but I feel a bit uncouth admitting it in public.

[Lamrok]

As to le Comte, by the way, it was a shame we weren't able to play at the same time as I missed the first adventure and you the second - I was looking forward to a particular rivalry that would have occurred, and not so much the French/English thing (if you see his background, you probably figured it out and what Regency Perk I bought...bwa ha ha...- I did so without knowing, btw, that this was the same ability your character had, as I didn't really connect that when you wrote "dandy" you meant it in the true genre sense and the perk that brings).

There's nothing I like better than a PC rival, and with no Chromatic, I need another vict-I mean-candidate. I imagine we'll have other chances to play the characters in the future.

[zornwil]

There's nothing I like better than a PC rival, and with no Chromatic, I need another vict-I mean-candidate. I imagine we'll have other chances to play the characters in the future.
I'm sure - looking forward to it!

[Gadodel]

Three PSs that I am thinking about using...

'I've heard something about that!' PS-Listener 12-

~This might cover anything from a rumor to a piece of music.

'I've seen something about that!' PS-Observer 12-

~This might cover anything from an eyewitness account to a film or movie.

'I've read something about that!' PS-Reader 12-

~This might cover anything from a comic, to a newpaper article to something read on the internet.


Three nifty PSs that cover a lot of territory. The Game Master could easily use the 'Extraordinary Skill' rules to exemplify adjectives such as 'Big' or 'Remarkable'. I.E. 'Oddhat has a remarkable interest in reading' PS-Reader 16- and so on.

Thoughts?

[RDU Neil]

Three PSs that I am thinking about using...

'I've heard something about that!' PS-Listener 12-

~This might cover anything from a rumor to a piece of music.

'I've seen something about that!' PS-Observer 12-

~This might cover anything from an eyewitness account to a film or movie.

'I've read something about that!' PS-Reader 12-

~This might cover anything from a comic, to a newpaper article to something read on the internet.


Three nifty PSs that cover a lot of territory. The Game Master could easily use the 'Extraordinary Skill' rules to exemplify adjectives such as 'Big' or 'Remarkable'. I.E. 'Oddhat has a remarkable interest in reading' PS-Reader 16- and so on.

Thoughts?

This definitely fits my thought processes on how Skills can be utilized... especially in the supers or wild cinematic levels of games. My players would also understand that big minuses would come into play if the stuff was really obscure... but mostly I would use it, not to have the player charcter KNOW all the facts and data... but for them to know where to start looking.

Good stuff! Rep

[Gadodel]

but mostly I would use it, not to have the player charcter KNOW all the facts and data... but for them to know where to start looking.

Good stuff! Rep

Exactly.

:winkgrin:

[Gadodel]

Another PS skill I've been thinking about has been 'Student'.

'In High School, I was taught' PS-Education 8-
'In Junior College (or tech school), I was taught' PS-Education 11-
'While getting my Bachelor's Degree, I was taught' PS-Education 12- 13-
'While getting my Master's Degree, I was taught' PS-Education 14- 16-
'While getting my JD/MD/PhD (etc), I was taught' PS-Education 17- or more.

This is a rough draft.

It reflects one's Diploma at various 'Degrees' of expertise.

I thought about doing something like this to reflect exposure to broad areas of information or interest.

Example: I have a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. I might have a SS Psychology 12-. However, as part of my "Natural Science' requirement, I took Astronomy, Biology, Math and Physics.

I could take an SS-Astronomy 8- etc OR I could us PS-Education 12 to reflect that I know something beyond the Psychology-though I may not find a job as a direct result of that part of my education.

Thoughts?

[Black Rose]

Another PS skill I've been thinking about has been 'Student'.

'In High School, I was taught' PS-Education 8-
'In Junior College (or tech school), I was taught' PS-Education 11-
'While getting my Bachelor's Degree, I was taught' PS-Education 12- 13-
'While getting my Master's Degree, I was taught' PS-Education 14- 16-
'While getting my JD/MD/PhD (etc), I was taught' PS-Education 17- or more.

This is a rough draft.

It reflects one's Diploma at various 'Degrees' of expertise.

I thought about doing something like this to reflect exposure to broad areas of information or interest.

Example: I have a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. I might have a SS Psychology 12-. However, as part of my "Natural Science' requirement, I took Astronomy, Biology, Math and Physics.

I could take an SS-Astronomy 8- etc OR I could us PS-Education 12 to reflect that I know something beyond the Psychology-though I may not find a job as a direct result of that part of my education.

Thoughts?

My G_d, this is beautiful, Gadodel. I REALLY like this one. Of course, I also really like your PS: Listener/Observer/Reader set, too. I've been reading some in-depth Batman fic lately (Cat-Tales (http://cattails.homestead.com/index.html) - I recommend it) and these skills seem like a great way to represent someone who just seems to know way too much - without having to get into using powers to simulate knowing every move somebody's going to make. Kind of in the vein of the Universal Jack of All Trades/ Translator/ Scholar/ Scientist/ Traveller/ Connections Talent set.

[Gadodel]

Thanks.

The one draw back I can think of, is that it is American-centric. Other countries use different terms to describe their 'Degrees' of expertise. I figure a translation shouldn't be too hard and I'd welcome any feedback on this point.

:) :)

[zornwil]

Three PSs that I am thinking about using...

'I've heard something about that!' PS-Listener 12-

~This might cover anything from a rumor to a piece of music.

'I've seen something about that!' PS-Observer 12-

~This might cover anything from an eyewitness account to a film or movie.

'I've read something about that!' PS-Reader 12-

~This might cover anything from a comic, to a newpaper article to something read on the internet.


Three nifty PSs that cover a lot of territory. The Game Master could easily use the 'Extraordinary Skill' rules to exemplify adjectives such as 'Big' or 'Remarkable'. I.E. 'Oddhat has a remarkable interest in reading' PS-Reader 16- and so on.

Thoughts?
Excellent suggestion, thanks a lot! (and repped)

[Gadodel]

Thanks.

I am currently adding additional 'trades' to my list.

I may reveal more at a later date.

[Gadodel]

Another option:

'Education' as a 'figured characteristic':

INT/3 + EGO/3 + PRE/3=Education Score

Intelligence: For learning power.
Ego: For drive, motivation to learn.
Presence: For getting along with a teacher, for convincing someone to teach

Education would replace a long a list of Background Skills.
Complimentary Skills could include: Analyze, Conversation, Cramming, Deduction.

Example:

Character has a 15 INT, 18 EGO, PRE 15: Education is 16-.
For simplicity say the GM rules that the character gets a +4 Adder.
Education becomes 20-.

Extraordinary Skill rules go into effect.

Penalties are applied.

Let's say the character is trying to determine 'Answer A'. Nearly, sheer folly; but being educated the character has a chance. 10-. He's more than familiar in the subject, but not neccessarily competent either. His Complimentary skills, which he refined while studying in his past; helped out.

Thoughts?

[Gadodel]

Thanks.

I am currently adding additional 'trades' to my list.

I may reveal more at a later date.

Here's a couple more PS...

'I've done all sorts of jobs, just look at my Resume': PS-Workaholic-12-
This could cover all sorts of customer service aspects, laborer type jobs as well as minor technology based jobs.

'I'm a self-taught soldier'. PS-Militia 12-

This could cover one's ability to use weapons and tactics normally taught by the military, but one picked up on their own-here and there...

[Lucius]

Buy it as a superskill in a focus (wife) :D











....thank goodness she doesn't read these boards....


FRED has a sidebar on the same page as the Resistance talent, explaining that other talents to resist other interaction skills can be made on the same basis....including Hard Bargainer, 1 pt to subtract 1 pt from an opponent's Trading rolls.

And by the way, she's not a focus - either DNPC with useful skills, or follower, or contact.

Or maybe YOU're listed as HER DNPC.


Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is writing up a character sheet...."Psych lim, hallucinations, sees Lucius Alexander everywhere...."

[radioKAOS]

A couple of thoughts: I'm trying to build a base template character at the moment that allows people to start play quickly. I have a 30 point skill pool at present: you just write in the descriptions for the skills:

PS: Career 11-
PS: Hobby 11-
2 interaction skills
2 agility skills
2 intellect skills
4 background skills (at 11-)

The background skills should generally be related to one or more of the other skills, so if your hobby is wargaming, it is logical to have a KS: Napoleonic History, if one of your interaction skills is seduction it is logical to have KS: chat-up lines. One of the background skills should generally be an AK.

This gives a structure to skill building: otherwise I find that some spend 45 points and some spend 5 points and never the twain shall meet. You can always buy more, but this makes players, in my experience, feel they've done their bit skill-wise and gives a reasonably rounded base of skills. Now this is designed primarily for superhero games, but could be applied to other genres easily enough - afterall a higher proportion of points will be spent on skills in a heroic game.

If everyone is spending a similar number of points on skills it is less irksome for those character-builders if the GM fluffs or expands the definition of a skill to allow characters to know something about the problem in hand.

OK, so that's point one: try and fix it with character build guidelines.

I really like this. And it's not just because I am a Waters fan. ;)

Question though, how do you 'scale' it to the different levels of play?

Is 10% of total character cost appropriate? Or should it be 20%?

Of course, situations vary, characters vary, just looking for what people think is an appropriate guidline. Also, should combat skills count toward that? What about skill levels? or martial arts?

My view is that 10-20% is generally appropriate. Skill levels should always count toward that. Combat skills and Martial arts should count if they are intrinsic to the character background ie he was a gladiator or the like.

[Gadodel]

As I work on 'PS' possibilities, I am finding that a PS can replace some of the existing skills on the list. Examples:

'I like working with people'. PS-Customer Service-12-.
Conversation, High Society, Oratory, Persuasion could be covered at times.

'I like working for people'. PS-Public Servant-12-
Acting, Bureaucratics, Cramming could be covered at times.

Etc. The possibilities are endless. I guess you could call them 'Package Deal-lites'.

My favorite is: 'I like to know a little about a lot'. PS-Polymath-12-. Here, the player tells the game master which other skills he would like to emulate. He could pick say, 3-5 other skills. It is kinds of like the skill enhancer 'Expert' in someways....