Radical Approach To Skills

[RDU Neil]

From all the different skill threads, it seems there are questions that need to be asked and answered:

1) What is INT in game terms? If it doesn't give you a bonus to INT Skill rolls, what use is it?

But...

2) Tying INT to skill rolls provides a game play that many are uncomfortable with, in that the high INT generalist is better than the Low INT specialist in most cases... and this diminishes any sense of the hard work and commitment it requires to really be "skilled" in many areas.


So... one option is to divorce characteristics from skills (which I agree with in theory) but that leaves us with question #1... what use is INT if divorced from skill rolls? (Aside from perception, which is another argument entirely.)

Here's my idea.

INT provides the NUMBER of INT (KS, CS, SC, PS, etc.) allowed to be purchased. Essentially, for game purposes INT establishes not how WELL you know a skill, but how many skills you can have (at a level worthy of putting on a character sheet.)

Something simple like INT/3 = # of Skills... so a 10 INT can have 3 skills (generous IMO) and a 12 INT can have 4, etc. Then all INT skills are based on a flat 3 points get you 11- roll... 2 points for +1.

Now... I know some of you are going to argue "But I want the 10 INT guy who just works really hard and reads all the time and studies all the time and while not super quick... he knows a ton of stuff!" Now, while I personally think this concept is as unrealistic as a man who shoot energy bolts out of his eyes, this is a legitimate concept for a Hero game, so the rules should allow it.

Thus you CAN buy more skills that INT/3, but at x2 the cost... INT skills become 6 points... but can be bought. You can do the average-but-hard working scholar... he's just expensive. (Yes, buyint 3 INT, and then another skill is the same as 6 points for the skill, but I don't have a problem with this... because it does what I think it should. High INT indicates that you can hold/process a larger amount of USEFUL information that can be accessed under stress. Yeah, some people seem to know a lot, but how much is useless trivia, surface information... and utterly worthless to actually accomplish anything other than arguing on the internet? Not much.)

I do realize this emphasizes my play style, which is "It should only go on a charcter sheet if it is truly critical to defining the character and critical to being used in the game." Skill lists for the sake of feeling "fleshed out" is not my cuppa, and this system would discourage that. It would also enforce the idea that "if I want a highly skilled character, broadly, I need a High INT... but a specialist can be much better, for cheaper, in a more narrow area."

Anyway... I'm sure this will be nerfed by all sorts, but I had to throw it out there as a different way to approach this issue.

[Sean Waters]

From all the different skill threads, it seems there are questions that need to be asked and answered:

1) What is INT in game terms? If it doesn't give you a bonus to INT Skill rolls, what use is it?

But...

2) Tying INT to skill rolls provides a game play that many are uncomfortable with, in that the high INT generalist is better than the Low INT specialist in most cases... and this diminishes any sense of the hard work and commitment it requires to really be "skilled" in many areas.


So... one option is to divorce characteristics from skills (which I agree with in theory) but that leaves us with question #1... what use is INT if divorced from skill rolls? (Aside from perception, which is another argument entirely.)

Here's my idea.

INT provides the NUMBER of INT (KS, CS, SC, PS, etc.) allowed to be purchased. Essentially, for game purposes INT establishes not how WELL you know a skill, but how many skills you can have (at a level worthy of putting on a character sheet.)

Something simple like INT/3 = # of Skills... so a 10 INT can have 3 skills (generous IMO) and a 12 INT can have 4, etc. Then all INT skills are based on a flat 3 points get you 11- roll... 2 points for +1.

Now... I know some of you are going to argue "But I want the 10 INT guy who just works really hard and reads all the time and studies all the time and while not super quick... he knows a ton of stuff!" Now, while I personally think this concept is as unrealistic as a man who shoot energy bolts out of his eyes, this is a legitimate concept for a Hero game, so the rules should allow it.

Thus you CAN buy more skills that INT/3, but at x2 the cost... INT skills become 6 points... but can be bought. You can do the average-but-hard working scholar... he's just expensive. (Yes, buyint 3 INT, and then another skill is the same as 6 points for the skill, but I don't have a problem with this... because it does what I think it should. High INT indicates that you can hold/process a larger amount of USEFUL information that can be accessed under stress. Yeah, some people seem to know a lot, but how much is useless trivia, surface information... and utterly worthless to actually accomplish anything other than arguing on the internet? Not much.)

I do realize this emphasizes my play style, which is "It should only go on a charcter sheet if it is truly critical to defining the character and critical to being used in the game." Skill lists for the sake of feeling "fleshed out" is not my cuppa, and this system would discourage that. It would also enforce the idea that "if I want a highly skilled character, broadly, I need a High INT... but a specialist can be much better, for cheaper, in a more narrow area."

Anyway... I'm sure this will be nerfed by all sorts, but I had to throw it out there as a different way to approach this issue.

Now I like this. It feels about right.

INT (IMO) shouldn't make you better at knowing stuff, although it may make you better at applying what you know. It may mean that you pick stuff up quicker, and so the stuff you pick up should be cheaper (arguably), but knowledge is knowledge: there is no substitute for actually sitting down and learning it.

I (personally) think that (INT) number of skills is too generous and (INT/3) is too ungenerous so I'd plump for (INT/2). To simulate the dedicated but not too smart individual I'd probably allow a character to substitute (EGO/2). That devalues INT a bit, but it is still pretty useful for other stuff. Like PER rolls. INT based application (as opposed to knowledge) skills and so on.

In an ideal world I'd probably remove INT from the system entirely and replace it with a system of talent constructed limtied skills. But that's just me :)

[schir1964]

Using INT or some other Characteristic to limit what a character has isn't new, and I think I've seen INT used to limit the number of Spells a character currently has also. Can't remember where though.

Anyway, I think your idea has merit.

Another possible idea is to adjust the division:
INT/2 = 5 Total Skills
or
INT/1 = 10 Total Skills

Also, using INT/3 you could also just create a standard advantage that simply doubles the number skills that INT provides.
+1 Increased Knowledge Advantage = Doubles the Total Skills (INT/3 = 3 = 6)
Sort of like how Non-Combat doublings are handled.

Just An Idea

- Christopher Mullins

[Araknir]

Also, using INT/3 you could also just create a standard advantage that simply doubles the number skills that INT provides.
+1 Increased Knowledge Advantage = Doubles the Total Skills (INT/3 = 3 = 6)
Sort of like how Non-Combat doublings are handled.

Or allow players to buy INT with a 'only to increase maximum number of skills' limitation...
Nice idea by the way Neil.

[RDU Neil]

Or allow players to buy INT with a 'only to increase maximum number of skills' limitation...
Nice idea by the way Neil.

I get a weird twitch any time people buy characteristics with limitations... (I actually have a theory about why this is fundamentally incorrect at a core Hero level) BUT...

... since it is common Hero functionality to buy characteristics with limitations, I'd be ok with this. Probably a -1/4 at best.

I have to admit, I really want to emphasize specialization, not omni-competent characters, so I don't want to make it easy for characters to have tons of skills unless they buy their INT up to super-human levels.

Actually I really like this even more. This would justify why Reed Richards has a 50 INT... because that is how he affords to be able to know (really "know") tons of stuff is because he is hyper smart.

[RDU Neil]

Using INT or some other Characteristic to limit what a character has isn't new, and I think I've seen INT used to limit the number of Spells a character currently has also. Can't remember where though.

Anyway, I think your idea has merit.

Another possible idea is to adjust the division:
INT/2 = 5 Total Skills
or
INT/1 = 10 Total Skills

Also, using INT/3 you could also just create a standard advantage that simply doubles the number skills that INT provides.
+1 Increased Knowledge Advantage = Doubles the Total Skills (INT/3 = 3 = 6)
Sort of like how Non-Combat doublings are handled.

Just An Idea

- Christopher Mullins

Actually that is the beauty of this method... you can adjust the /x number as you see fit for your campaign. Want more skills x approaches 1, want less skills x gets bigger. The rest stays the same. A trule "toolbox equation."

[Doc Democracy]

I (personally) think that (INT) number of skills is too generous and (INT/3) is too ungenerous so I'd plump for (INT/2).

Yeah but then you screw up the costing system is there for INT/3.

If you want more skills it is probably more necessary at the low end of the scale. With INT/3 you get 3,6 and 10 skills for INTs of 10,20 and 30. With INT/2 you get 5,10 and 15 skills.

How about you give 3+INT/3 skills if you want to be generous? That keeps the cost structure in place...

Doc

[RDU Neil]

Yeah but then you screw up the costing system is there for INT/3.

If you want more skills it is probably more necessary at the low end of the scale. With INT/3 you get 3,6 and 10 skills for INTs of 10,20 and 30. With INT/2 you get 5,10 and 15 skills.

How about you give 3+INT/3 skills if you want to be generous? That keeps the cost structure in place...

Doc

Nice... rep. uh... maybe not... fraggin' rep rules

[Sean Waters]

Nice... rep. uh... maybe not... fraggin' rep rules


Yeah....me too......

[Doc Democracy]

Nice... rep. uh... maybe not... fraggin' rep rules


Well, I tired to rep you for the original idea - rep rules caught me too - have added you to my list....Sean is bound to end up with more entries on the list as well. :(

[ghost-angel]

The only problem I have with this is that, to me at least, INT represents how fast you can learn - not how much.

So while this is a major deviation from how I see INT, I have to say it's a nice ruleset that could serve many very well.

Ah, and I got in some rep there as well for ya.

[Zed-F]

Are you going to change PRE-based skills around in a similar fashion too? What about Dex-based skills?

INT is already relatively undervalued compared to combat statistics for most games. And unless you're intending to play a hyper-smart character, in general overall levels are more valuable than INT. Furthermore, in most cases it's already cheaper to simulate most skills usage with an MP or VPP of super-skills, especially for highly skilled characters. Reducing the value of INT by degrading its main game effect as you describe seems to me to encourage players to spend less points on INT and INT-based skills. Why would someone want to take a concept which includes high INT when they could take a concept which spends points more effectively in other ways? You still won't see people specializing in particular skills any more than they do currently because spending lots of points on single skills is largely a waste; what you'll see instead is people with fewer skills and more powers, including superskills.

So, is this merely change for change's sake? It might work for some games, but I don't think making it harder to get high-value skills is really going to help anything for most games. Isn't it in genre for most action heroes and superheroes to be highly competent sorts of people? Having a broad skill base at a good skill level is part and parcel of that.


I do realize this emphasizes my play style, which is "It should only go on a charcter sheet if it is truly critical to defining the character and critical to being used in the game." Skill lists for the sake of feeling "fleshed out" is not my cuppa, and this system would discourage that. It would also enforce the idea that "if I want a highly skilled character, broadly, I need a High INT... but a specialist can be much better, for cheaper, in a more narrow area."
Ok, for a house rule for your own game, fine. I don't think it works well in general; to me this is a case of putting 'realism' before game balance and dynamics, while I think the latter is more important. Moreover, I think action heroes and superheroes who are broadly skilled are very in-genre and shouldn't be penalized any more than they already are for spending points in skills. YMMV, of course, and clearly does.

[RDU Neil]

The only problem I have with this is that, to me at least, INT represents how fast you can learn - not how much.

So while this is a major deviation from how I see INT, I have to say it's a nice ruleset that could serve many very well.

Ah, and I got in some rep there as well for ya.


I don't think you'd have to disassociate "how fast you learn" from INT. In fact, as Hero stands now, this is totally absent from the system. If you have three points, you can buy a skill... no "game time" expense or level of INT required... just buy it.

What the system does is somehow relate INT to "how well I know something" which doesn't make sense. How fast you learn it? Sure... how quick witted in using the information? Sure.... how MUCH you can hold in your head... that is what I'm proposing... but "how well you know it?" that makes now sense to me.

So... if you had a mechanic (if one is needed) attached to "learning" a skill... I'd have no problem with INT factoring into that. There just isn't such a thing in Hero (that I know of.)

[RDU Neil]

Are you going to change PRE-based skills around in a similar fashion too? What about Dex-based skills?

INT is already relatively undervalued compared to combat statistics for most games. And unless you're intending to play a hyper-smart character, in general overall levels are more valuable than INT. Furthermore, in most cases it's already cheaper to simulate most skills usage with an MP or VPP of super-skills, especially for highly skilled characters. Reducing the value of INT by degrading its main game effect as you describe seems to me to encourage players to spend less points on INT and INT-based skills. Why would someone want to take a concept which includes high INT when they could take a concept which spends points more effectively in other ways? You still won't see people specializing in particular skills any more than they do currently because spending lots of points on single skills is largely a waste; what you'll see instead is people with fewer skills and more powers, including superskills.

So, is this merely change for change's sake? It might work for some games, but I don't think making it harder to get high-value skills is really going to help anything for most games. Isn't it in genre for most action heroes and superheroes to be highly competent sorts of people? Having a broad skill base at a good skill level is part and parcel of that.


Ok, for a house rule for your own game, fine. I don't think it works well in general; to me this is a case of putting 'realism' before game balance and dynamics, while I think the latter is more important. Moreover, I think action heroes and superheroes who are broadly skilled are very in-genre and shouldn't be penalized any more than they already are for spending points in skills. YMMV, of course, and clearly does.

Actually... I think it could have the effect of making skills more important... because in many cases I see people listing things as multiple individual skills, rather than one overall skill that covers most of what they want. See the "Park Ranger" example in the Skill Poll thread. This way... if you take a skill, you are making sure it is worth the points and has a significant game effect. Often you have characters (supers or not) with huge skill lists, and almost none of them have any impact on play. By reducing the number of skills, you make the skills you do have more important... plus...

As opposed to genre convention where every super team has multiple overlapping/redundant skill sets just to show how "cool' every character is... this doesn't play out well in RPGs where players want their character to have a "speciality" as Wallace would say. This method would enforce a sense of specialization (a genre bit that is every bit as much a part of the action/adventure genre as the omni-competent type) which enhances team play and sense of identity for characters. In fact, in enhances the uber-compentent skilled type of character, because they truly are more unique in their shtick.

Hey... not for everyone... but in fact I came up with this more in response to all the other threads on "skill don't work right in Hero" around here. I've no desire to drastically change the Hero skill mechanic... but this seemed to be one "outside the box" way to think about some of the issues other people were griping about.

[prestidigitator]

I think this would actually tend to have the opposite affect of discouraging the buying of Skills. Also, it creates some extra complexity in terms of defining which Skills fit under the Int Skill Enhancer (because a fancy Skill Enhancer is what Int now becomes).

I myself tend to shy away from the whole Int/5 spell limit, even. I just do something like charging one character point per spell with >10 Active Points (something similar to Teleportation Locations rather than Delayed Effect instances).

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a highly skilled character who has a low Int, in any and every genre, setting, and power level. I won't discourage that kind of build just because I respect those with a high intelligence, and tend to like concepts like the intellectual spell caster personally.

[ghost-angel]

I don't think you'd have to disassociate "how fast you learn" from INT. In fact, as Hero stands now, this is totally absent from the system. If you have three points, you can buy a skill... no "game time" expense or level of INT required... just buy it.

What the system does is somehow relate INT to "how well I know something" which doesn't make sense. How fast you learn it? Sure... how quick witted in using the information? Sure.... how MUCH you can hold in your head... that is what I'm proposing... but "how well you know it?" that makes now sense to me.

So... if you had a mechanic (if one is needed) attached to "learning" a skill... I'd have no problem with INT factoring into that. There just isn't such a thing in Hero (that I know of.)
Well, it comes from me believing we've all got the same basic capacity for knowledge. How fast we learn something or pick up on things is a factor of 1) How much time we put into any given thing and 2) how easy it is for that given thing to sink in. Which is where I see INT.

I've never liked limiting the number of skills a person can/will learn - it rules out those with short attention spans (or Shiny Object Syndrome) going and learning a little about everything. Or those who choose a broad scpectrum of information over a small one.

I always have seen INT as how fast you pick up on things, if two people sit down and one is a fast learner and the other slow the fast learner will pick up and add to the knowledge must faster than the slow learner. But the slow learner will have to take more time and effort to gain the same level of understanding.

That's how I see it.

[prestidigitator]

Well, it comes from me believing we've all got the same basic capacity for knowledge. How fast we learn something or pick up on things is a factor of 1) How much time we put into any given thing and 2) how easy it is for that given thing to sink in. Which is where I see INT.

I've never liked limiting the number of skills a person can/will learn - it rules out those with short attention spans (or Shiny Object Syndrome) going and learning a little about everything. Or those who choose a broad scpectrum of information over a small one.

I always have seen INT as how fast you pick up on things, if two people sit down and one is a fast learner and the other slow the fast learner will pick up and add to the knowledge must faster than the slow learner. But the slow learner will have to take more time and effort to gain the same level of understanding.

That's how I see it.
Well said. I agree. Limiting Skills is exactly the opposite of what I'd like to see. (Rep.)

[RDU Neil]

Well, it comes from me believing we've all got the same basic capacity for knowledge. How fast we learn something or pick up on things is a factor of 1) How much time we put into any given thing and 2) how easy it is for that given thing to sink in. Which is where I see INT.

I've never liked limiting the number of skills a person can/will learn - it rules out those with short attention spans (or Shiny Object Syndrome) going and learning a little about everything. Or those who choose a broad scpectrum of information over a small one.

I always have seen INT as how fast you pick up on things, if two people sit down and one is a fast learner and the other slow the fast learner will pick up and add to the knowledge must faster than the slow learner. But the slow learner will have to take more time and effort to gain the same level of understanding.

That's how I see it.

We look at INT very differently. While I agree it reflects speed of picking up something new... there is no way a game can reflect WHAT aspects of the knowledge and interpretation the person picks up. Some people see high level patterns and can easily extrapolate and predict but struggle with a practical application (that would be me)... others can memorize crunchy details and formula and such that create very practical outcomes but struggle to extrapolate details of one situation to another new situation. One might be more able to plan and strategize, but struggle to execute... another is excellent in execution, but struggles to see long term ramifications.

I do see speed of picking something up, and sinking in... but sinking in to what level... and how long does that sinking in last? I don't see most people retaining knowledge "AT A LEVEL WORTH PUTTING ON A SHEET" in too many areas at once. Just because a bunch of us can spout off on the internet and exercise our geek macho (no burly chests and headbutting... instead it's "Look how much I know!" macho) doesn't mean that knowledge is of significance if we were characters in a game... or that it would really help us in any way in our daily lives. I do think humans have a limited ability to truly "know" a number of subjects... and in game terms, those that have heightened INT is a way to show those special few who can maintain deep, useful knowledge in many different areas. Since picking up and siinking in a new skill has no game measure... INT has to reflect something else that can be game measured. The number of truly meaningful skills someone has is a good way to do this.

[ghost-angel]

We look at INT very differently.
Couldn't agree more.

For how you're defining INT your system is absolutely beautiful - hence I rep'd you for it.

I'm simply playing a bit of DevilsAdvocate on this since I look at INT so radically different from you, pointing out the possible downside of the system and it's limitations from a different angle.

By all means - keep on keeping on with this. I think it's a nice solution to a particular problem that doesn't exist on my side of the fence. :)

Edit: Though I will add that a part of me is fundamentally against any system that limits the characters in such a way to cripple their learning capacity (number of skills). Gives me flashbacks to DnD2E, and that game caused me to quit RPGs completely.

[Zed-F]

Actually... I think it could have the effect of making skills more important... because in many cases I see people listing things as multiple individual skills, rather than one overall skill that covers most of what they want. See the "Park Ranger" example in the Skill Poll thread. This way... if you take a skill, you are making sure it is worth the points and has a significant game effect. Often you have characters (supers or not) with huge skill lists, and almost none of them have any impact on play.
I'd like to make a distinction here between what I might call practical skills, as opposed to flavour skills. A practical skill is a skill where it's reasonably likely that opportunities to use the skill will arise naturally and/or the player can reasonably engineer opportunities to use the skill. A flavour skill is just that.

I generally find it's usually characters with long lists of practical skills who get the most opportunities to use their skills, whereas someone with merely PS:Park Ranger will never see that skill come up, even if it's at a really high level. While I agree with the sentiment that a skill that costs a lot should be worth a lot, and in a game where the GM pays attention to that sort of thing it might well be worth a lot, as a general point of balance for the system, it doesn't fly. Most GMs don't customize their campaigns to that level of detail. Heck, you're lucky if the GM even reads your background and disads more than once at character creation time! As a player, generally you have to make your own opportunities to use your skills, not wait for the GM to hand you one. To that end, it helps to bring a fair-sized list of practical skills to the table. I'm not talking about a list of skills three pages long, and I agree that while flavour is good there is a point where it gets silly, but in most games I can usually come up with 30-50 or so points worth of practical skills, such as detective, stealth, influencing, or combat skills, including 5 or so fairly broad KSs, and most of them will see consistent use. There will be a few flavour skills in there too, most likely, but only a couple.


PS: Park Ranger, Tracking and WF: Big-*** Gun, AK: The Park; KS: Park Ranger; KS: Zoology, Hiking, Navigation, Survival, even Riding or Bureaucracy
Sure, for a typical park ranger, you're not going to need all that. You'll need PS: Park Ranger and probably the WF if you expect to use the gun at some point in play -- maybe the AK, if you expect to spend much game time at the park -- the rest of it is optional, and depending on the game, probably just there for flavour. But some professions demand a higher level of 'practical' competency than that, and those are the kinds of professions that your typical action hero will tend to come from. I mean, if a character takes PS: US Navy Seal, are you going to let them sub that in for Concealment, Stealth, Demolitions, Tactics, appropriate WFs, and all the other skills a Navy Seal would need? I can't think of many GMs that would. Certainly I'd give some leeway for things a US Navy Seal ought to know or know how to do, and so forth, but giving out free 3-point practical skills on the basis of a PS? You're not going to see that happen very often except in a heavily customized, house-ruled game. And if you're not giving out the practical skills for free, why bother spending valuable points buying up the flavour PS skill? It's just there for flavour, right? Most GMs will ignore it anyway.

Again, fiddling with INT might work for your game, but my guess is it's not going to naturally produce the effect you want. You're still going to need to tell people 'this is how I want skills to work in my game, just take the main one you want and buy it up, and I'll give you anything that seems related for free.' And it really screws over the high-INT characters, to no real benefit that I can see. If you don't let the high-INT characters take practical INT skills and realize the benefit of their INT, then what's the point of taking a high INT concept? You might as well take a low-INT concept and buy a bunch of PER levels, or take a high-PRE or high-DEX concept instead, since INT will be basically useless.

If you want to combat excessive spending on flavour skills, I'd say combat that directly, rather than messing with the balance point for INT.

[RDU Neil]

I'd like to make a distinction here between what I might call practical skills, as opposed to flavour skills. A practical skill is a skill where it's reasonably likely that opportunities to use the skill will arise naturally and/or the player can reasonably engineer opportunities to use the skill. A flavour skill is just that.

I generally find it's usually characters with long lists of practical skills who get the most opportunities to use their skills, whereas someone with merely PS:Park Ranger will never see that skill come up, even if it's at a really high level. While I agree with the sentiment that a skill that costs a lot should be worth a lot, and in a game where the GM pays attention to that sort of thing it might well be worth a lot, as a general point of balance for the system, it doesn't fly. Most GMs don't customize their campaigns to that level of detail. Heck, you're lucky if the GM even reads your background and disads more than once at character creation time! As a player, generally you have to make your own opportunities to use your skills, not wait for the GM to hand you one. To that end, it helps to bring a fair-sized list of practical skills to the table. I'm not talking about a list of skills three pages long, and I agree that while flavour is good there is a point where it gets silly, but in most games I can usually come up with 30-50 or so points worth of practical skills, such as detective, stealth, influencing, or combat skills, including 5 or so fairly broad KSs, and most of them will see consistent use. There will be a few flavour skills in there too, most likely, but only a couple.


Sure, for a typical park ranger, you're not going to need all that. You'll need PS: Park Ranger and probably the WF if you expect to use the gun at some point in play -- maybe the AK, if you expect to spend much game time at the park -- the rest of it is optional, and depending on the game, probably just there for flavour. But some professions demand a higher level of 'practical' competency than that, and those are the kinds of professions that your typical action hero will tend to come from. I mean, if a character takes PS: US Navy Seal, are you going to let them sub that in for Concealment, Stealth, Demolitions, Tactics, appropriate WFs, and all the other skills a Navy Seal would need? I can't think of many GMs that would. Certainly I'd give some leeway for things a US Navy Seal ought to know or know how to do, and so forth, but giving out free 3-point practical skills on the basis of a PS? You're not going to see that happen very often except in a heavily customized, house-ruled game. And if you're not giving out the practical skills for free, why bother spending valuable points buying up the flavour PS skill? It's just there for flavour, right? Most GMs will ignore it anyway.

Again, fiddling with INT might work for your game, but my guess is it's not going to naturally produce the effect you want. You're still going to need to tell people 'this is how I want skills to work in my game, just take the main one you want and buy it up, and I'll give you anything that seems related for free.' And it really screws over the high-INT characters, to no real benefit that I can see. If you don't let the high-INT characters take practical INT skills and realize the benefit of their INT, then what's the point of taking a high INT concept? You might as well take a low-INT concept and buy a bunch of PER levels, or take a high-PRE or high-DEX concept instead, since INT will be basically useless.

If you want to combat excessive spending on flavour skills, I'd say combat that directly, rather than messing with the balance point for INT.

Two things:

1) I do find that a general skill like Park Ranger 17-, tends to get used because players can say, "Hey... we are going into the mountains... might I know something about them from my days as a Park Ranger?" I'll say, sure... roll it. Depending on the roll, I give them information that seems to make sense... or none at all if they just make the roll and don't have any reason to have specific knowledge of those specific mountains. BUT... they make the roll by 10, well gee... there was that mountaineering course you took five years ago in these very hills... so I'll give you a rough area knowledge on this..."

OTOH if the player truly wants their character to be an expert on mountaineering and survival... I'll expect those extra skills... I just wouldn't require them to be considered "a park ranger."

2) Ahhh the Nave SEAL example. This one really gets me. It is the most used example for "But my character demands a huge list of competent level skills!" I'm sorry, but Navy SEALs are not gods. They are people. Unless one of them is the team demo expert with day in, day out study and practice on demolitions... then 8- Familiarity covers it. 2 Points gest Small Arms, and Stealth? This one really bugs me. The argument is "But realistically, SEALs traing to be stealthy all the time... it is what they do!" which makes sense, except that the way the game skill of Stealth plays out in game time is ANYTHING but realistic. "I have to have a 14- to be any good at Stealth" is the cry... but if you want to continue the "realistic" argument... the SEAL is actually trained to take advantage of all the "skill modifier bonuses" rather than have magical, ninja like abilities. SEALs take minutes, if not hours to infiltrate a base... they use modifiers like "not being expected" and "under cover of night" to pull this stuff off... most often hiding for quite a bit of time for enemies to leave before moving, etc. All of that cranks that 8- or at best 11- up to a nice healthy 16- or better.

Yeah... that argument always bugs me... it takes many forms in RPGs... the player will argue "realism" when it helps their character and "genre" when realism hurts. So... while in no way do I want to denigrate the real world effectiveness of experienced, blooded special forces... I'm also not about to grant them super-ninja James Bond status either.

[prestidigitator]

So... while in no way do I want to denigrate the real world effectiveness of experienced, blooded special forces... I'm also not about to grant them super-ninja James Bond status either.
They shouldn't by any means have god-like levels of skill, but they should probably have a decently broad skill base. Most are likely to have basic levels of Stealth, Concealment, Paramedics, Systems Operation (at least Fam), and Security Systems (at least Fam), not to mention their PS, probably a KS or two relating to areas, military capabilities, and/or the culture of their specialty geographies, etc. They will all have some Security Clearance, TFs with at least basic military ground vehicles and Basic Parachuting (usually Advanced too), WFs with Small Arms and probably Blades. Some, but not all, will have Demolitions, Mechanics, Electronics, Languages, somewhat higher levels of Paramedics and Systems Operation, Combat Driving, Combat Piloting, TFs with more advanced vehices, WFs with more specialized weapons, etc.

[Zed-F]

Nowhere did I say Mr. Seal needs a 14- Stealth to be effective. But he'd better have that as a 3-point skill. Along with a host of others. Your typical Seal probably has a 13-14 DEX and a 13 INT (they only take the best, right?) which means a 12- Stealth, Conceal, etc. etc. etc.

Not supercompetent at any of them, necessarily, and using modifiers to succeed on a regular basis, but you think these guys don't train to operate when it all hits the fan as well as under ideal circumstances? Realistically, they'd better have more than an 8- in their core comptencies, or they'd blow every other mission at least. Things rarely work according to plan in the field.

[prestidigitator]

Your typical Seal probably has a 13-14 DEX and a 13 INT (they only take the best, right?)....
They supposedly only take the best...of those stupid enough to join the military. Sorry, but I will differ from most in questioning very greatly the intelligence of those willing to do that. It probably doesn't matter in any case, though, as we are almost always interested in playing the mythical heroic version of these people rather than a truly realistic version.

[bblackmoor]

Anyway... I'm sure this will be nerfed by all sorts, but I had to throw it out there as a different way to approach this issue.

Well... this is interesting, and it might be a neat mechanic for some other game, but not Hero. I really, really, really like how Hero handles skills, regardless of what characteristic they are based on. It took a long time (and several editions) for the powers that be at Hero Games to make their skill system work the way I always thought it ought to work, and I wouldn't change a thing now.

But it's an interesting idea. It strikes me as something one might see in a Fudge game.

[Markdoc]

Ok, for a house rule for your own game, fine. I don't think it works well in general; to me this is a case of putting 'realism' before game balance and dynamics, while I think the latter is more important. Moreover, I think action heroes and superheroes who are broadly skilled are very in-genre and shouldn't be penalized any more than they already are for spending points in skills. YMMV, of course, and clearly does.

I'm not even sure it's that realistic - a really smart generalist *can* often outperform a not-terribly smart specialist even in their specialised area: unless that area requires translational skills (code-writing, or speaking a foreign language, for example) or muscle-memory skills (disassembling a specialised piece of equipment, say) where practice counts.

cheers, Mark

[Zed-F]

Hence why I put quotes around the word realism -- I'm not convinced it's realistic either. :)

[Zed-F]

They supposedly only take the best...of those stupid enough to join the military. Sorry, but I will differ from most in questioning very greatly the intelligence of those willing to do that. It probably doesn't matter in any case, though, as we are almost always interested in playing the mythical heroic version of these people rather than a truly realistic version.
There are lots of reasons people join the military. Some people may have been brought up to have a highly developed sense of duty and/or patriotism -- that is, strong emotional reasons to join the military. Some people come from the working poor and have no other options if they want to go to college. Others may be trapped in ghetto or poverty-stricken lifestyles and not have many other options to get out. None of these reasons for joining the military preclude intelligence in any way.

I'll grant that a lot of people who join the military may not be all that smart. A lot of people who do join the military are smart enough to get college degrees, though, and go on to become successful in careers requiring intelligence both in and outside the military. Painting everyone who joins the military as stupid is using a very broad brush and a conceit that only those who grew up in a privelaged environment can afford -- and I speak as someone who grew up in a privelaged environment.

[Duke Bushido]

If it's not to late to mention another use of INT---

like GA, I look upon intelligence as an ability to comprehend and learn. The higher the INT, the more easily a character grasps something. And I believe that even a 'lo-q' character-- or person-- can learn just as many things, but will be more required to buckle down and work for it. INT seems more, to me, like the ability to immediately understand abstracts, make connections, draw conclusions, etc---

it's a measure of how --
crud, I wish there were words within my vocabulary for what I'm trying to say. The best I can do is to offer an example:
the way that some people leap into advanced math with only the most rudimentary of explanations, all the while going "well of course! That makes perfect sense!" while other people will need to have the basics pounded into them before they 'see the light.' Everyone can learn all these things, but some people swim right off into it on their own.


To that end, one of the uses for high INT characters in my own campaigns is related skills and skill modifiers. A character with a remarkable INT score is more likely to be allowed to try to do something with a skill that is dissimilar, but with certain common traits, or he may be able to use several complimentary skills instead of one or two, with the justification that he has found a subtle (to others) but definate connection between many areas of the skills.


Just my own way of doing it; nothing earth-shattering. This just seemed like the place to put it.

[Doc Democracy]

Are you going to change PRE-based skills around in a similar fashion too? What about Dex-based skills?

Well, to be fair, RDU Neil was suggesting that INT puts a limit on the number of skills that a character might know at any one time. That would affect all char-based skills equally.

If you have read most of his posts you'd see that his style allows players to use their skills flexibly and broadly thus playing an action adventure style where skills might be used wherever the stretch of the mind might take them.


It might work for some games, but I don't think making it harder to get high-value skills is really going to help anything for most games. Isn't it in genre for most action heroes and superheroes to be highly competent sorts of people? Having a broad skill base at a good skill level is part and parcel of that.

I understand why you think it would make it harder to get high value skills (but just because you remove a characteristic base doesn't mean you then start a skill at 9 or 10 or even 11). You could also allow a relevant stat to be a supplementary as appropriate - it would make the skills more flexible that way.


Ok, for a house rule for your own game, fine. I don't think it works well in general; to me this is a case of putting 'realism' before game balance and dynamics, while I think the latter is more important.

I'm not sure that this is right. I think it would depend on the game - and I think RDU Neil would agree that particular genres might be better suited to such arrangements than others.

Personally I think that Sean's request for far more discussion on how to use skills in the rulebook is right. There are so many ways to use and decisions to make by the GM on these and yet they get almost no consideration at all. Obviously the Ultimate Skill book should remedy the lack but the core rulebook needs to have a bit more consideration of this part of the rules.


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

INT seems more, to me, like the ability to immediately understand abstracts, make connections, draw conclusions, etc---

it's a measure of how --
crud, I wish there were words within my vocabulary for what I'm trying to say.

I believe the term you are looking for is 'the intuitive leap'.

Getting to the solution without having to go through all of the intermediate logical steps.


Doc

[Phil]

Personally not sure I like this idea, but it's certainly an interesting concept. Personally I like skills systems which are fully-integrated to the characeristics, e.g. Climbing is just a sub-skill of the Meta-skill Dexterity. HERO doesnt take this approach, instead having skills as character bolt ons that, in some cases, provide new special abilities. This concept compliments the HERO philosophy nicely, but doesn't suit my own. C'est la vie.

I was wondering whether you might like to treat Familiarity in a different way, though. It strikes me that characters ought to be able to utilise their high INT in two different ways: some might take a few skills and use their intelligence to be very effective at them; others might have a high boredom threshold and spread themselves thinly but across many more areas than less intelligent people might achieve. Perhaps accomodate this by having familiarities counting as 50% of a KS?

Hmm, I can feel myself heading off to extremes on this theory of limited intelligence to an entirely new skill model where the characteristic reflects the maximum learning possible within each skill group. Each familiarity "costs" 1 point, each full skill "costs" 2 points and each skill level thereafter "costs" another point, to a maximum of the characteristic. So 20 INT can give you 20 familiarities; 10 familiarities and 5 skills; or 6 familiarities and 2 skills at +5.

Or something like that. Not that I actually like the idea myself .... ;)

[prestidigitator]

There are lots of reasons people join the military. Some people may have been brought up to have a highly developed sense of duty and/or patriotism -- that is, strong emotional reasons to join the military. Some people come from the working poor and have no other options if they want to go to college. Others may be trapped in ghetto or poverty-stricken lifestyles and not have many other options to get out. None of these reasons for joining the military preclude intelligence in any way.

I'll grant that a lot of people who join the military may not be all that smart. A lot of people who do join the military are smart enough to get college degrees, though, and go on to become successful in careers requiring intelligence both in and outside the military. Painting everyone who joins the military as stupid is using a very broad brush and a conceit that only those who grew up in a privelaged environment can afford -- and I speak as someone who grew up in a privelaged environment.
Well, I'm not going to respond to most of this as it is clearly bait, but I will say that I don't think it takes much intelligence to realize that, "selling one's soul," is never worth the price, however great and however tempting. In this we can differ. :)

[bblackmoor]

Well, I'm not going to respond to most of this as it is clearly bait, but I will say that I don't think it takes much intelligence to realize that, "selling one's soul," is never worth the price, however great and however tempting. In this we can differ. :)

If we could still give negative reputation, this would get it. Shame on you.

[schir1964]

If we could still give negative reputation, this would get it. Shame on you.
Zed-F's post came across to me as a little inflamatory due to the severe nature of Prestigidator's opinion, whether right or wrong, in his original post. Granted that Prestigidator response could also be considered on the trollish side, but came across to me as only his opinion and not trying to single out anyone specifically. He should know better. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Shike019]

I don't know if this particular thing has been said yet, but the way I look at INT effecting KS's and SS's is that you gain the knowledge assimilate the knowledge and then Expand the knowledge. The high skill rolls (according to the book) are supposed to be you are the leeding expert in the area and you discover new ways of using the skill. Example. My character has a 21- KS: Chinese Healing (works as SS: Medicine according to UMA) and while working on a patient, my character was able to bring a patient safely out of a 45 year coma w/o using very many tools, in a relatively short period of time ( I believe it was less than 15 min). Of course my character has had centuries of practice, but the point is that almost no other living practitioner of chinese healing could probably do this. It is in this realm that i believe that INT and other characteristics should always be connected to skills. Thought there is the debate that there should usually be multiple characteristics connected to most skills. Such as str and dex connected to Acrobatics. But that, again, is my opinion and won't discuss herel:)

[prestidigitator]

I'm fine with dropping it anyway. As I said...

Sorry, but I will differ from most in questioning very greatly the intelligence of those willing to do that. It probably doesn't matter in any case, though, as we are almost always interested in playing the mythical heroic version of these people rather than a truly realistic version.
...it is the mythical, heroic version of the people in question we are dealing with. The cinematic version, if you will. It really doesn't matter if we are all in agreement over whether and how much that differs from reality. I will certainly agree that the figures we are typically representing game-wise tend to have an intelligence that is above average.

The, "Elite Soldier," template I created a month or so ago had an Int of 12 (that's baseline), and the, "Commisioned Officer," template I created had an Int of 13. Certainly high above the average human 8 Int.

[Duke Bushido]

I believe the term you are looking for is 'the intuitive leap'.

Getting to the solution without having to go through all of the intermediate logical steps.


Doc

"Intuitive!" Yes; that was indeed the word I wanted. Thank you, Doc D.

Forgive my inability; I have a small memory problem with my vocabulary as a result of an accident a long time ago. Thanks!

[Duke Bushido]

[EDIT: For some reason, my quote of Shike above didn't come through. If this makes no sense, go up three posts and read his comments first]

I don't think that many folks would disagree with that;

If I understand correctly (and I hope I do, as I've been reading the whole thread with this bend) is that the topic under discussion is the 'default' of having a very high INT (or other Char) and the way it automatically gives you superiority in _all_ skills based on that Char, wether it makes sense within the concept or not.

Hmmm....

how many levels of Skill can I sell back? :D

[prestidigitator]

how many levels of Skill can I sell back? :D
Actually, that is a very good point (rep). The system kind of makes it impossible to have a very high Characteristic and still be rather average at a Skill based on that Characteristic. That's kind of wrong. I'm really starting to like my idea of the Characteristic bonus acting as a discount for a certain amount of Skill improvement.

EDIT: Heh. That sure sounded humble. :rolleyes: Sorry 'bout that.

[ghost-angel]

Hrm.. damn that isa good point.

What we actually need is a way of buying a Skill without applying the CHAR, or applying the CHAR - our choice. Not one or the other.

[RDU Neil]

"Intuitive!" Yes; that was indeed the word I wanted. Thank you, Doc D.

Forgive my inability; I have a small memory problem with my vocabulary as a result of an accident a long time ago. Thanks!


One thing to be careful with in this area... to consider those more comfortable with making "intuitive leaps" as "more intelligent" than those who take a more detailed, step by step process to reach a conclusion... this is tenuous ground.

In certain psychological models there are benefits and weaknesses to both preferences. People do both... think systematically AND think intuitively. Some prefer/are more comfortable with one mode over the other. Both are necessary and healthy mental processes.

It is very common to think of the intuitive types as "more intelligent" and this is also reflected in certain models... I'm not saying right or wrong here... just that "intelligence" can mean so many things (especially if you start getting into things like Emotional Intelligence, etc.) that we are really going to get screwed up if we attempt to define INT in anything more than game terms.

To define it simply as "The key numerical factor for determining the number of skills your character can have" is purely a game mechanic definition... and no more or less "realistic" than "The key numerical factor for determining your base roll in certain skills."

[zornwil]

Well, it comes from me believing we've all got the same basic capacity for knowledge. How fast we learn something or pick up on things is a factor of 1) How much time we put into any given thing and 2) how easy it is for that given thing to sink in. Which is where I see INT.

I've never liked limiting the number of skills a person can/will learn - it rules out those with short attention spans (or Shiny Object Syndrome) going and learning a little about everything. Or those who choose a broad scpectrum of information over a small one.

I always have seen INT as how fast you pick up on things, if two people sit down and one is a fast learner and the other slow the fast learner will pick up and add to the knowledge must faster than the slow learner. But the slow learner will have to take more time and effort to gain the same level of understanding.

That's how I see it.

See, I read what you wrote as supporting RDU Neil's idea. "I have always seen INT as how fast you pick up on things..." - this is why higher INT = more skills, because each skill takes time to learn, so the faster you learn, the more skills you have. Using Neil's other idea of making extra skills still availlable but more expensive also addresses this.

Also, don't forget, you can buy up a skill. I'd take a general skill such as "KS - World History", then buy it up a bunch, so that the smaller-level details can still work at, say, -10 reasonably.

Personally, I like Doc Democracy's 3+(INT/3) idea, but I still might tend to do more like Sean with INT/2.

And taking it RDU Neil's way, I think you could justify bringing back those "uber-skills" such as "Detective Works", whether at higher or current values.

I also tend to think I'd apply it to the other areas as well. A lower PRE means you probably have less flexibility in how you apply it, to me.

It also opens up a good use for another char to boost the few skills you have economically, "No figured skills". Now my head hurts...

Anyway, great idea RDU Neil!

[zornwil]

Actually, that is a very good point (rep). The system kind of makes it impossible to have a very high Characteristic and still be rather average at a Skill based on that Characteristic. That's kind of wrong. I'm really starting to like my idea of the Characteristic bonus acting as a discount for a certain amount of Skill improvement.

EDIT: Heh. That sure sounded humble. :rolleyes: Sorry 'bout that.
Well, I thought that in RDU Neil's system it wouldn't be "+CHAR/5" anymore. Although now I realize he didn't say that.

Okay, how about this:

(make the below INT instead if you like)

Skill Roll = 9+(Skill)

Max discounted skills in an area = 3+(BASE CHAR/3)
A discounted skill = +1 per 2 points, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

Any skills beyond discounted skill cost +1 per 4 points, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

A skill can be directly based on a char for a 5 point additional cost. In this case, the skill roll receives a bonus of (CHAR/5).

Something like that...

[RDU Neil]

Hrm.. damn that isa good point.

What we actually need is a way of buying a Skill without applying the CHAR, or applying the CHAR - our choice. Not one or the other.

Don't have 5ER... but isn't it still possible to choose how a skill exists... either as a Characteristic Based or Background, which is a flat cost?

I certainly remember that option in 4th Edition. Normally the choice was to make something into an INT based skill because it was higher value for less... but you could choose to buy all skills as Background skills... couldn't you?

Again... this is just late night memory speaking here.

[RDU Neil]

Well, I thought that in RDU Neil's system it wouldn't be "+CHAR/5" anymore. Although now I realize he didn't say that.

Okay, how about this:

(make the below INT instead if you like)

Skill Roll = 9+(Skill)

Max discounted skills in an area = 3+(BASE CHAR/3)
A discounted skill = +1 per 1 point, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

Any skills beyond discounted skill cost +1 per 2 points, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

A skill can be directly based on a char for a 3 point additional cost. In this case, the skill roll receives a bonus of (CHAR/5)

Something like that...

(WHOOPS HANG ON, EDITING)


Whoops... I thought I was more clear.

INT/3 (or /2, whatever) is the number of skills you get at as FLAT 11- roll. Buy it up from there at 3 per 2.

That was my idea anyway.

[zornwil]

Whoops... I thought I was more clear.

INT/3 (or /2, whatever) is the number of skills you get at as FLAT 11- roll. Buy it up from there at 3 per 2.

That was my idea anyway.
Okay, good, it wasn't just my imagination.

[Super Squirrel]

I see a ton of problems with this idea.

First, this is Hero System, not Shadowrun.
Second, this system does not fit well in Heroic Level games as it greatly restricts the number of skills a player would normally have.

Indiana Jones is a great example, CK, CuK, AK up the wazoo and he has to pay double cost for most of them? No. This is a very bad idea.

[zornwil]

I see a ton of problems with this idea.

First, this is Hero System, not Shadowrun.
Second, this system does not fit well in Heroic Level games as it greatly restricts the number of skills a player would normally have.

Indiana Jones is a great example, CK, CuK, AK up the wazoo and he has to pay double cost for most of them? No. This is a very bad idea.
Indiana Jones isn't that INT-y?

Besides, how many INT-skills does he have? Detective Works, Archaeologist (which will give him the digs he's been on and the experiences as well as academic), and ... ? I mean, sure there's more, but if you think broadly fewer skills are required.

[ghost-angel]

See, I read what you wrote as supporting RDU Neil's idea. "I have always seen INT as how fast you pick up on things..." - this is why higher INT = more skills, because each skill takes time to learn, so the faster you learn, the more skills you have. Using Neil's other idea of making extra skills still availlable but more expensive also addresses this.
Well, I was trying to say that a high INT allows you to buy the same number of skills as a lower INT but at a better degree of understanding.

I can see where I was supporting RDU's statements though. I suppose I could be at some level - faster learners learn more skills to the same degree as slower learners in a set time frame.

I just don't like being told I can't learn more than X Number of skills. Unilimited capability is why I started playing HERO in the first place. If I want 35 different KSs then I should be able to get 35 different KSs, regardless of my INT level. but, YMMV, as usual.

[zornwil]

Well, I was trying to say that a high INT allows you to buy the same number of skills as a lower INT but at a better degree of understanding.

I can see where I was supporting RDU's statements though. I suppose I could be at some level - faster learners learn more skills to the same degree as slower learners in a set time frame.

I just don't like being told I can't learn more than X Number of skills. Unilimited capability is why I started playing HERO in the first place. If I want 35 different KSs then I should be able to get 35 different KSs, regardless of my INT level. but, YMMV, as usual.
I don't have a problem with that, either, I just think the other way is interesting.

[ghost-angel]

I don't have a problem with that, either, I just think the other way is interesting.
Oh I do to, I even Rep'd him for it. I'm just arguing the other side of the fence. Partly because I like thay side and partly because any holes I poke can maybe be improved for either system.

[Super Squirrel]

Indiana Jones isn't that INT-y?

Besides, how many INT-skills does he have? Detective Works, Archaeologist (which will give him the digs he's been on and the experiences as well as academic), and ... ? I mean, sure there's more, but if you think broadly fewer skills are required.
First let me state that if I have a player that has KS: European Cities and a player that has KS: Paris, the player with KS: Paris gets more detail to the city than the player with European Cities.

Even with a 20 INT with RDU's System the limit is either 10 skills or 7 skills.

Indiana Jones is an Archaeologist and Professor.
KS: Universities
PS: Professor
SS: Archaeology

Now, this brings us to the broad vs. narrow issue. He knows about lots of world cities, lots of areas, lots of people, and ancient societies.

You could do:
AK: World Cities
AK: World Jungles and Deserts
KS: Big Named People
KS: Ancient Societies

But at the INT / 3 you have reached the cap. So it cuts off any further skills such as:
KS: Ancient Artifacts
KS: Religions
CuK: Aboriginal Tribes

Those three cut him off for the INT/2 Cap. And Indy still doesn't have:
KS: History

And before I get criticism that many of this stuff is covered under SS: Archeaology, it isn't. As a Science Skill, it gives him the ability to know how to check a site and treat artifacts to preserve history.

[Super Squirrel]

First let me state that if I have a player that has KS: European Cities and a player that has KS: Paris, the player with KS: Paris gets more detail to the city than the player with European Cities.

Even with a 20 INT with RDU's System the limit is either 10 skills or 7 skills.

Indiana Jones is an Archaeologist and Professor.
KS: Universities
PS: Professor
SS: Archaeology

Now, this brings us to the broad vs. narrow issue. He knows about lots of world cities, lots of areas, lots of people, and ancient societies.

You could do:
AK: World Cities
AK: World Jungles and Deserts
KS: Big Named People
KS: Ancient Societies

But at the INT / 3 you have reached the cap. So it cuts off any further skills such as:
KS: Ancient Artifacts
KS: Religions
CuK: Aboriginal Tribes

Those three cut him off for the INT/2 Cap. And Indy still doesn't have:
KS: History

And before I get criticism that many of this stuff is covered under SS: Archeaology, it isn't. As a Science Skill, it gives him the ability to know how to check a site and treat artifacts to preserve history.
Oh, and the above is giving Indy a very, very broad category of understanding for world cultures and locations. He is a well travelled individual and should have at least four to five more skills tacked on there, IMHO.

[zornwil]

(snip)

And before I get criticism that many of this stuff is covered under SS: Archeaology, it isn't. As a Science Skill, it gives him the ability to know how to check a site and treat artifacts to preserve history.

But that's the point - to interpret broadly, so there's no reason in cinematic pulp you wouldn't put this into one useful skill.

Game effect wise, I think it's pretty arguably balanced, too, in non-combat vs combat from some perspectives.

[Super Squirrel]

But that's the point - to interpret broadly, so there's no reason in cinematic pulp you wouldn't put this into one useful skill.

Game effect wise, I think it's pretty arguably balanced, too, in non-combat vs combat from some perspectives.
But you cut off character diversity doing that.

I mean what difference is it for someone that took a class or two in Psychology and a Psychotherapist if both have only the single skill, SS: Psychology?

[zornwil]

But you cut off character diversity doing that.

I mean what difference is it for someone that took a class or two in Psychology and a Psychotherapist if both have only the single skill, SS: Psychology?
The play experience in question is game effect. Someone with a class or two in Psychology doesn't rate a game skill, in a cinematic game. Of course, it's not a one size fits all solution.

[ghost-angel]

I'm completely with SS on this really, but his arguements are better than mine so I'll let him do the talking :)

[Super Squirrel]

The play experience in question is game effect. Someone with a class or two in Psychology doesn't rate a game skill, in a cinematic game. Of course, it's not a one size fits all solution.
So you would tell a player, as a GM that they don't qualify for the skill they would like to have because they aren't a licensed experience therapist even if it is a part of their character concept?

They are called background skills for a reason.

[zornwil]

So you would tell a player, as a GM that they don't qualify for the skill they would like to have because they aren't a licensed experience therapist even if it is a part of their character concept?

They are called background skills for a reason.
No, they have the skill, there just isn't a strong game relevance enough to make him pay points.

PS - "skill" in this case, after all there's really not much to be gained out of one class taken a while back

[zornwil]

No, they have the skill, there just isn't a strong game relevance enough to make him pay points.

PS - "skill" in this case, after all there's really not much to be gained out of one class taken a while back
What I think it would tend to do is reward more tightly-focused characters and penalize loosely-focused characters.

[Super Squirrel]

No, they have the skill, there just isn't a strong game relevance enough to make him pay points.

PS - "skill" in this case, after all there's really not much to be gained out of one class taken a while back
I still don't like this at all Zornwil. It is taking away from the creative desires of the player. And not to equivocate, but I'm talking not about one class but a couple of classes. You can take a couple of classes and have an understanding of Psychology practical enough to use the skill. But Psychology is also a very diverse skill. You can have a professional therapist that can work someone through any sort grief and not have the slightest clue with how to profile a Seriel Killer.

So I have to disagree with any game mechanics that writes off one character's concept because it isn't "game practical" and grants another character's concept access to something he really shouldn't have knowledge on.

[tesuji]

Hmmm... interesting discussions

A general rule of mine for making changes is:
"A change which goes in two opposite directions at once is usually a bad idea."

In this case the first change seems to be to restrict skills (limited to int/X) but then when questioned to make it work a second change (or maybe alteration of nuance) is to broaden the scope for skills so that "one skill" means more.

My personal view is that paying for "you can spend points elsewhere" isn't a good idea in this system. I didn't like it when in FH-4 you "paid" for a higher NCM for certain races and this feels very similar... pay for more skills before a double cost whammies you.

Did you guys like the 4th NCM for racial templates rule where you paid 3 cp for an NCM kick-in of 23 on strength? Did it serve you well?

[RDU Neil]

Well, I was trying to say that a high INT allows you to buy the same number of skills as a lower INT but at a better degree of understanding.

I can see where I was supporting RDU's statements though. I suppose I could be at some level - faster learners learn more skills to the same degree as slower learners in a set time frame.

I just don't like being told I can't learn more than X Number of skills. Unilimited capability is why I started playing HERO in the first place. If I want 35 different KSs then I should be able to get 35 different KSs, regardless of my INT level. but, YMMV, as usual.

And nothing is stopping your from buying as many skills as you want. Just increase your INT to be able to buy as many as you want. This argument makes no sense to me.

Now I'm not saying that this should be THE Hero way... just that it is an "out of the box" idea about how to reconcile SOME of the issues that SOME of the posters around here have with characteristics and their effect on skills. Nothing more, nothing less.

[RDU Neil]

So you would tell a player, as a GM that they don't qualify for the skill they would like to have because they aren't a licensed experience therapist even if it is a part of their character concept?

They are called background skills for a reason.

No... if they are truly "background" skills... then they have 'em for free. Not worth the points. Pure flavor.

Ex: If a character said he was in his Junior year of college in a psych program when he got his powers and turned to superhero-ing... great, that is his background, but in no way would I think he needs to spend points in KS: Psychology. He has some basic knowledge because that is his background. If someone wants to be truly knowledgable... a person who has extensive background, practice, expertise... then they buy the skill.

Actual game example (using straight up Hero... no house rules) I had a player who had done lots of volunteer/charity work before he became a super. Off and on throughout the campaign he would take time off to work soup kitchens and even helped to set up a chain of homeless shelters. I think he eventually bought "Non-profit Businesses" or some such because he wanted to... but I never made him buy KS: Charitable Organizations or whatever... it was pure role playing flavor. (OTOH, he had a Reed Richards level SC skill list, because THAT was the critical, defining, game effecting place where skillsets demanded points be spent.)

[Super Squirrel]

But there is no checks and balances to background skills.

I can sit and write a background where my character has done a little bit of everything and get a ton of background skills. But to represent that in the current system I have to buy lots of familiarities.

[RDU Neil]

But there is no checks and balances to background skills.

I can sit and write a background where my character has done a little bit of everything and get a ton of background skills. But to represent that in the current system I have to buy lots of familiarities.

Why do you need checks and balances on background skills? In what way are they unbalancing?

How would a player abuse "I've hacked around for 10 years, doing a whole bunch of this and that... washing dishes, construction, crop work, volunteer fireman... blah, blah.." compared to a player who says, "I did a stint in the peace corps and picked up some knowledge on subsistance culture survival, some bits of Peruvian culture, some hiking and mountaineering... but nothing really expert... that was just what I was doing before."

Both are just background... flavor... one is just more detailed than the other... neither likely to have serious game effects... both just as likely to have plot hooks that can be used. What is so abusable?

In the end, skills are usually just vehicles for story. If a character is a biologist, you can have them make a SC skill roll to examine some organic matter that leads them to the bio-labs of Marakesh. If they don't have the skill... well, then Contact Man uses his contact in Bio-Gen to have them analyzed... or Action Adventure man has to rescue a gambling-junky scientist from getting beaten up by a bookie, and in payment gets the stuff analyzed... whatever. The same information eventually gets to the PCs and they end up in Marakesh... the details just differ somewhat.

I just don't see how background skills can be abused. Things like Stealth and Acrobatics... which have quantifiable game effects... sure. Those are qualitatively and quantitatively different things than SC: Biology, though they are on the same list and cost the same.

[Super Squirrel]

In the end, skills are usually just vehicles for story. If a character is a biologist, you can have them make a SC skill roll to examine some organic matter that leads them to the bio-labs of Marakesh. If they don't have the skill... well, then Contact Man uses his contact in Bio-Gen to have them analyzed... or Action Adventure man has to rescue a gambling-junky scientist from getting beaten up by a bookie, and in payment gets the stuff analyzed... whatever. The same information eventually gets to the PCs and they end up in Marakesh... the details just differ somewhat.
I highlighted the key problem here. You want to completely change the rules because you feel that skills are usually vehicles. Not everyone plays games that way. I always incorporate background skills into the games as reward for players giving their character background. And you would be surprised how some players are able to use background skills in unique ways to solve a problem.

[bblackmoor]

But that's the point - to interpret broadly, so there's no reason in cinematic pulp you wouldn't put this into one useful skill.

Great: then my adventurer has "Professional Skill: Former Special Forces Soldier". That should cover all of her Languages, Area Knowledges, Knowledge Skills, Stealth, Acrobatics, Breakfall, Demolitions, Shadowing, Weapon Familiarities....

[bblackmoor]

And nothing is stopping your from buying as many skills as you want. Just increase your INT to be able to buy as many as you want. This argument makes no sense to me.

That argument makes no sense to me. It's like requiring someone to buy their Dex up in order to know how to play a variety of professonal sports. It makes no sense.

[zornwil]

I still don't like this at all Zornwil. It is taking away from the creative desires of the player. And not to equivocate, but I'm talking not about one class but a couple of classes. You can take a couple of classes and have an understanding of Psychology practical enough to use the skill. But Psychology is also a very diverse skill. You can have a professional therapist that can work someone through any sort grief and not have the slightest clue with how to profile a Seriel Killer.

So I have to disagree with any game mechanics that writes off one character's concept because it isn't "game practical" and grants another character's concept access to something he really shouldn't have knowledge on.
Well, I wouldn't propose it to replace the core system, but I think as an option it's nice. And I think you could augment the core system with an option for control over skills - it's not much different in my mind than limiting spells based on INT or EGO which has been recommended by HERO.

Not to harp or anything on it, but I think the example of "a few classes" and "a passable skill" just don't cut it in a cinematic game where that kind of stuff is easily just an INT roll, a "gimme" since it is, as you say, background. Now, I'm not suggesting that a truly low-level game should be handled the same way. But, frankly, I think a truly low-level game is (mostly) better served by a skills system such as GURPS has, which is a lot more detailed, handles task difficulty, and is very specific on specialization and the like.

As an aside, but a relevant one, I think in general, I'd like to see HERO background skills handled more like Savage Worlds, where they're all free, they're just an INT roll plus/minus accordingly.

[zornwil]

Hmmm... interesting discussions

A general rule of mine for making changes is:
"A change which goes in two opposite directions at once is usually a bad idea."

In this case the first change seems to be to restrict skills (limited to int/X) but then when questioned to make it work a second change (or maybe alteration of nuance) is to broaden the scope for skills so that "one skill" means more.

My personal view is that paying for "you can spend points elsewhere" isn't a good idea in this system. I didn't like it when in FH-4 you "paid" for a higher NCM for certain races and this feels very similar... pay for more skills before a double cost whammies you.

Did you guys like the 4th NCM for racial templates rule where you paid 3 cp for an NCM kick-in of 23 on strength? Did it serve you well?
To answer the question, we didn't use the package deal stuff much, I think we had one or two purchases. I didn't see any real issue with them, since the effects are small or even non-existent in higher-end (just points/power-wise, I mean) games, and back then didn't play any lower power games.

I don't think RDU Neil's comment on skill broadness is a change, it's just a game-specific interpretation. Some games do skills this way, some don't. HERO itself is conflicted on the matter, having started with a broad skill system with a higher cost of entry for each skill and then moving to the somewhat more granular system. I could have sworn there was a reference to "skills are used broadly" in 5ER but it's not there last time I looked, but it seems to me that HERO's own current implementation of scale of skills is ill-defined.

Then again, I don't think that's a weakness, or at least not solely a weakness. There's a strength in allowing it to be interpreted on the individual game level, although there is some question as to how imbalanced this can become.

One of the problems I have with any of the ideas presented on skills is that they all drive the system towards a specificity that I'm not sure meshes well enough. The current lack of definition of skills does allow them, however inelegantly, to match more easily for games across different genres and power levels and tastes. And while that sounds counter to HERO, I'm not so sure it is. The powers and power construction is where HERO gets really crunchy, but that crunchiness itself is more in the method and not the definition of how the power will play out the more we move away from strictly traditional attack/defend powers. It's along the lines of HERO's professed SFX agnosticism.

In any case, I think this (like a couple other versions I've seen) of revamping skills towards a specific play experience is pretty solid. Playtesting would tell better of course.

[zornwil]

One enhancement idea to RDU Neil's proposal:

Skill Enhancers boost # of skills. If you get "Scientist" or "Jack of all Trades" or a GM-approved skill enhancer (e..g, in my game I allow "Driver" which enhances all driving-related skills, and "Warrior" which enhances weapon familarities), you may double the number of skills per base char BUT ONLY FOR RELATED SKILLS. Repeated purchases of Skill Enhancer continue this doubling.

This way, you can have a generalist more easily without having to up the INT or pay "too much".

[zornwil]

But there is no checks and balances to background skills.

I can sit and write a background where my character has done a little bit of everything and get a ton of background skills. But to represent that in the current system I have to buy lots of familiarities.
Savage Worlds applies no check or balance beyond common sense and GM application. It works pretty well, having played this enough. Honestly, I reallly don't think it's that big a deal.

And in general, if someone's written their background well enough, I will certainly allow a roll for something that makes sense accordingly.

[zornwil]

I highlighted the key problem here. You want to completely change the rules because you feel that skills are usually vehicles. Not everyone plays games that way. I always incorporate background skills into the games as reward for players giving their character background. And you would be surprised how some players are able to use background skills in unique ways to solve a problem.
To be fair, as RDU N. suggested above, he's not advocating the core rules change.

I agree with you that background skills can make a difference, but do people "have" to pay points for something that happens once in a year or less frequently of game play, particularly when it's, as in these examples, for a solid character concept? It's much like the SFX of a power wherein you might get minor benefit, such as "I use my heat blast to keep Thundor warm in this frigid arctic weather!"

[zornwil]

Great: then my adventurer has "Professional Skill: Former Special Forces Soldier". That should cover all of her Languages, Area Knowledges, Knowledge Skills, Stealth, Acrobatics, Breakfall, Demolitions, Shadowing, Weapon Familiarities....
Many of these are quantifiable skills that have a specific effect that has to be purchased. Others less so. To break it down:

Languages: for the places she's been and spent adequate time and such in, sure

Area Knowledges: as for Languages, sure

Knowledge Skills: depending; which KSes?

Stealth: this is well-quantified and embedded in combat/near-combat situations, typically you'd break this out

Acrobatics: moreso than Stealth, a required purchase

Breakfall: ditto to Acrobatics

Demolitions: depending on the game, I could see allowing slight abilities with this; like any of the background skills, wouldn't rise to the same level as if you were a demolitions expert, but you'd recognize a bomb and a few simple types you might be able to handle; I don't think a generalist "Special Forces" person is going to be a demolitions expert by default

Shadowing: I'm not sure this plays into that background other than following a guy on patrol for a short ways, which is really stealth

Weapon Familiarities: some of these, the appropriate modern weaponry, depending on the game, sure

The point here is in regard to the particular game type and how deep we're talking about these skills. As actual "serious" skills that are used flamboyantly or dramatically, you don't get anything for the background skills, but as "I might know a little about that" or "yeah, I was assigned to Libya for 6 months and it wasn't just 'get-in-and-out' so I know a little Arabic, enough to get by," sure, in a lot of games I don't see a problem.

[zornwil]

That argument makes no sense to me. It's like requiring someone to buy their Dex up in order to know how to play a variety of professonal sports. It makes no sense.
First, I think RDU Neil proposed this only for INT and its specific meaning in the system.

But anyway, actually, the DEX example to me is EXACTLY the thing...that DOES make sense to me. Different sports require more and compounding forms of dexterity. A higher-DEX person is more capable of adapting and adjusting and being flexible (literally). A lower-DEX person might end up being great at playing sophisticated POV computer games but can't handle basketball, or vice-versa. Someone higher DEX can do both with relative ease of learning, since their body is more easily trained for all sorts of dexterity.

Now, I wouldn't impose this on the core system, but I think it "makes sense". It's "just" a matter of definition of "what does a char mean." If char = core aptitude (whether body or mind), then it works well.

[Super Squirrel]

To be fair, as RDU N. suggested above, he's not advocating the core rules change.

I agree with you that background skills can make a difference, but do people "have" to pay points for something that happens once in a year or less frequently of game play, particularly when it's, as in these examples, for a solid character concept? It's much like the SFX of a power wherein you might get minor benefit, such as "I use my heat blast to keep Thundor warm in this frigid arctic weather!"
Player 1 decides he wants to play a former private detective with PhDs in Electronics and Physics. The former detective after tracking fugitives down across various parts of the country decides the law isn't working and builds a powersuit to fight crime in a different way.

Player 2 decides he wants to play an extra dimensional being who comes from the simple world of Quigtop with absolutely no crime and very little concept of culture, things are simply they way they are. Having discovered this world with crime in it, he decides to use his abilities to fight crime.

Player 1 has a high background skill character.
Player 2 has a low background skill character.

This "system" rewards Player 1 and penalizes Player 2 even though Player 2 has a much more unique character concept.

In the current system, Player 1 puts more points into skills that give him some occasional practicality in the game. Player 2 gets less points on skills, but the trade off he has more points for his powers.


Personally, what I think you and RDU are debating is everyman. There are certain skills that everyone is assumed to have. If not, they put down that nice little Physical Limitation: Knows Nothing of Earth Culture.

[zornwil]

Player 1 decides he wants to play a former private detective with PhDs in Electronics and Physics. The former detective after tracking fugitives down across various parts of the country decides the law isn't working and builds a powersuit to fight crime in a different way.

Player 2 decides he wants to play an extra dimensional being who comes from the simple world of Quigtop with absolutely no crime and very little concept of culture, things are simply they way they are. Having discovered this world with crime in it, he decides to use his abilities to fight crime.

Player 1 has a high background skill character.
Player 2 has a low background skill character.

This "system" rewards Player 1 and penalizes Player 2 even though Player 2 has a much more unique character concept.

In the current system, Player 1 puts more points into skills that give him some occasional practicality in the game. Player 2 gets less points on skills, but the trade off he has more points for his powers.


Personally, what I think you and RDU are debating is everyman. There are certain skills that everyone is assumed to have. If not, they put down that nice little Physical Limitation: Knows Nothing of Earth Culture.
I would think a "former private detective with PhDs in Electronics and Physics" is more than just "background". If he's still up on his private eye stuff, he'd have "PS: Detective" as a specific skill and for a PhD which sounds more game-relevant then at least one if not two skills for it. Then again, if he looks at these as "stuff I didn't really retain" and doesn't mind not having much utility for it, then that's fine, too.

I don't think RDU N. is talking about "everyman" stuff. Having "2 couses' worth of psych in college" isn't "everyman" but in a cinematic/pulp game it's definitely not worth paying points for - unless you are miraculously "psychology guy" from just those 2 courses, then it's no longer background.

The basic point, as I understand it from RDU's subsequent posts, and it seems logical, is, for this type of game "is this a character-defining skill?" If former detective/PhD guy is defined in part by these experiences, as a broad narrative aspect of the character, sure he has to pay points. If it's something that doesn't really come up other than in a blue moon, it's not.

[Super Squirrel]

But RDU's idea is two fold. It is limiting skills based on INT and it is writing off hardly used skills as not being worth spend int points on but you can use it based on your background.

To use the Player 1 / 2 example above:
Player 1 decides his character is 35. He started being PI when he was 22. Because he spent four years in New York, where the campaign is set, he buys that as a skill. He decides that the other ten cities aren't worth it for spending points on and writes them off as "background" because otherwise, he would have to spend extra points on some of his skills.

The campaign goes to Detroit for a session and the GM lets Player 1 know enough around that the group doesn't get badly lost. It happens again at another point in time in Boston... etc.

Meanwhile Player 2 spent no points on backgrounds because his background doesn't apply at all.

The two ideas combined causes way too many problems, IMHO. I think a much better idea would be to give, say, all players INT / 3 in background familiarity skills. And if you want to change how you pay for skills, that is fine.

[RDU Neil]

I think a much better idea would be to give, say, all players INT / 3 in background familiarity skills. And if you want to change how you pay for skills, that is fine.

Actually, I really like this as well. INT/3 is the stuff you don't have to pay points for, but establishes your background/personality skill set. You then buy skills "as per the rules" for anything above and beyond that you want to define your character and have game play effect. Cool concept... not quite addressing what I originally was addressing, but I like it.

There are a lot of things going on in this discussion that go way beyond "How do characteristics (wish that word were shorter) and skills interact?" Play style, genre expectations, etc.

Your example above (detective vs. alien) is, IMO, an example of competing genre characters expected to share a game. This is one of the big weaknesses of Hero, in that it generates a thought process of "Since I can do anything with the system, anything I do is acceptable." This often isn't the case. You have character 1 who is more of a modern model super... and charcter 2 is more of a Silver Age conceptual super (using these terms loosely) and the issue really lies in that such characters come with different expectations and game styles... and the GM needs to manage that in a way the system doesn't provide rules for. This is a clear example of how Hero is not a game, but a system for building a game.

[Storn]

The two ideas combined causes way too many problems, IMHO. I think a much better idea would be to give, say, all players INT / 3 in background familiarity skills. And if you want to change how you pay for skills, that is fine.

this is pretty much my house rule mechanic for Savage Worlds.

There is their Knowledge skill and is very abstract. Your PC's Knowledge is what is appropriate for THAT character. If your PC was a lumberjack from the Sword Coast, then rolling for City knowledge: Waterdeep is probably going to be at a minus.

I like that. But several players felt a little adrift. They wanted some background skills on their sheet so they had a more concrete sense of the character's background. A reminder of sorts, more than anything.

So my house rule was this: You have EQUAL dice ranks to your Knowledge in background skills for FREE. So a d4 Knowledge could have 4 d4 Specific Knowledges... or 2 d6 Specifics. Or one d10! background Specific. If the d4 Knowledge was raised to d6, then 2 add'l ranks could applied or even new background Specifics added.

This worked really well, SW is a game where every single point/rank is extremely important... and folks were able to flesh out their characters nicely by having a d4 or d6 General Knowledge. And it was sorta sign of character maturity... a streetwise rogue could have 4-6 background skills as well as the academic, societal elite mage... and be very different from each other.

It never hurt game balance once as far as I could tell. In fact, it promoted some character driven solutions and plot "ownership". By putting background "History of Medical Theory" down on the sheet by the Elven surgeon... it said to me that was important to the player. That he wanted me, the GM, to know that.

It is interesting to me how much roleplaying of being a "elven doctor" in a frontier situation came up.... and rarely where the dice rolled. He often threw/capitilized on the social weight of being a doctor into political wrangling. But we both crafted situations that prompted that background being called upon.

I also like Squirrel's approach because it is simple. I like simple. Even in Metacreator or designer, one can just list 6 skills at 11- for 0 pts if one's INT is 18. Want more background skills? (my PC just graduated pre-med), buy up INT. I would love to see INTs of 30s... why the heck not? Divorce it from I.Q. understanding of problem solving.

As for Perception going up... maybe that should be divorced... but now we are deeply changing the game.

INT then becomes more of your EDUCATION score. And Education can be either school of hard knocks (I have INT of 15, and I have Hotwire car, Know Nightclubs that deal, NYC, NYC Subway system, Brooklyn Mob at 11-) or a more traditional-thought of academic lifepath. (I have INT of 15, Mathematics, Physics, Columbia University, NYC, Professors of Note)

[zornwil]

But RDU's idea is two fold. It is limiting skills based on INT and it is writing off hardly used skills as not being worth spend int points on but you can use it based on your background.

To use the Player 1 / 2 example above:
Player 1 decides his character is 35. He started being PI when he was 22. Because he spent four years in New York, where the campaign is set, he buys that as a skill. He decides that the other ten cities aren't worth it for spending points on and writes them off as "background" because otherwise, he would have to spend extra points on some of his skills.

The campaign goes to Detroit for a session and the GM lets Player 1 know enough around that the group doesn't get badly lost. It happens again at another point in time in Boston... etc.

Meanwhile Player 2 spent no points on backgrounds because his background doesn't apply at all.

The two ideas combined causes way too many problems, IMHO. I think a much better idea would be to give, say, all players INT / 3 in background familiarity skills. And if you want to change how you pay for skills, that is fine.

If player 2 didn't spend any points on background skills and created a character with no useful background, isn't that player 2's conceptual stance? Player 2 will certainly, as you noted, get a Disad, and then have some points to spend. I don't see an imbalance beyond that which the actual players chose.

[prestidigitator]

Well, I thought that in RDU Neil's system it wouldn't be "+CHAR/5" anymore. Although now I realize he didn't say that.

Okay, how about this:

(make the below INT instead if you like)

Skill Roll = 9+(Skill)

Max discounted skills in an area = 3+(BASE CHAR/3)
A discounted skill = +1 per 2 points, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

Any skills beyond discounted skill cost +1 per 4 points, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

A skill can be directly based on a char for a 5 point additional cost. In this case, the skill roll receives a bonus of (CHAR/5).

Something like that...
Did you see this post of mine (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=854046#post854046) in you Skills Poll thread? It would solve the issue I mentioned as well (the hole of not being able to have an average Skill level with a high Characteristic).

EDIT: I'll rephrase:

For Char/5 = x and a standard 3/2 Skill:

Cost Skill Roll
1 8-
2 9+1 = 10-
3 9+2 = 11-
...
1+x 9+x
3+x 10+x
5+x 11+x

[zornwil]

Did you see this post of mine (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=854046#post854046) in you Skills Poll thread? It would solve the issue I mentioned as well (the hole of not being able to have an average Skill level with a high Characteristic).

EDIT: I'll rephrase:

For Char/5 = x and a standard 3/2 Skill:

Cost Skill Roll
1 8-
2 9+1 = 10-
3 9+2 = 11-
...
1+x 9+x
3+x 10+x
5+x 11+x
Yeah, that's a pretty good idea, also. I did see it, though unless you had mentioned it I woudln't have explicitly recalled it and associated with you. All the ideas here tend to blur!

[Duke Bushido]

One thing to be careful with in this area... to consider those more comfortable with making "intuitive leaps" as "more intelligent" than those who take a more detailed, step by step process to reach a conclusion... this is tenuous ground.

Not what I was trying to express; sorry if it came across that way.

I was stating that I felt that the INT characteristic represented how fast a person thought under pressure and made intuitive leaps, not just a raw measure of IQ. While I feel that IQ is no doubt a part of it, I have always been under the impression that if the stat represented IQ alone, it would have been called "IQ" and we'd have a whole different set of rules for it.


It is very common to think of the intuitive types as "more intelligent"

True, but there is also an increasing tendency to think of people who can quote huge chunks of trivia from People magazine and Acess Hollywood as "more intelligent" as well. That all by itself is caveat enough, for me at least, about using any kind of idea of 'intelligence' as _the_ single defining trait. Reasoning along this line has always led me to the idea that the INT stat represented more than just raw intellect.

[Duke Bushido]

Actually, that is a very good point (rep).

Hey, thanks!

And thanks for picking it up. I wasn't looking to derail the conversation; sometimes the soft sell is the best way to broach an idea....


The system kind of makes it impossible to have a very high Characteristic and still be rather average at a Skill based on that Characteristic. That's kind of wrong. I'm really starting to like my idea of the Characteristic bonus acting as a discount for a certain amount of Skill improvement.

Also an intriguing idea. Actually, there have been many intriguing ideas around this thread. And that's part of the problem: there are so many good ideas on how to 'fix' the skill system that I don't think there will ever by a method that truly satisfies everyone. I have considered all kinds of things over the years, from letting high INT allow a price discount to skills to requiring a cap on 'bonus skill level' from high stats to requiring all skills start at base X or less (no CHAR bonus).

I've even tried hybrids such as "you can apply CHAR bonus to the first five skills affected by that CHAR; all others are X or less" and things like that.

None of these have ever really proven to be more universally 'right' than the current system, so I never persued it much further.


EDIT: Heh. That sure sounded humble. :rolleyes: Sorry 'bout that.

Nothing to appologize for; as long as someone can pull off civil, humble isn't a deal breaker ;) At least, not for me, and certainly not from someone with a general history of both anyway.:cool:

[Duke Bushido]

Hrm.. damn that isa good point.

What we actually need is a way of buying a Skill without applying the CHAR, or applying the CHAR - our choice. Not one or the other.

I put a few minutes into thinking about this, but haven't really gone in-depth. It's late, and I'm racking out in a few.

How about this:

Base skill is 11-, which is equal to base CHAR 10 anyway. For base price, you get 11-, advanced as per the rules.

For an additional 1 (or 2; whatever works for you), you can factor in CHAR bonus. You only buy that once; it applies forever.

Just a rough thought.

Or maybe do it the other way around:
for one (or two) points less, you forfiet the CHAR bonus.

Opinions?

[ghost-angel]

I would do skill progression one of two ways:

Method 1-
the 3-point step (I had this ealier somewhere else, w/ some good suggestions)
1pt = 9- Familiarity; 2pts = 9+CHAR/10; 3pts = 9 + CHAR/5.
Additional levels are +2 pts.

Method 2-
a different 3-point step
1pt = 8- Familiarity; 2pts = 10- Knowledge; 3pts = 9 + CHAR/5
(this assume the CHAR/5 gives at least 1 pt, hopefully 2 or more.)
Additional levels are +2pts.

In method one, you progress up and then buy levels normally after that. In method two you can start buying levels at the 2pt Level, never adding in your CHAR stat if you don't want, but may spend the +1pt at any time to do so.

Those are my ideas on changing how skills are bought, everything else about skills I like as is.

[Duke Bushido]

Interesting. I'll have to play on it a bit and see what issues come up. But from what I see, very nice! ;)

[ghost-angel]

Method 2 is similar to how KS are bought now, in fact it might behoove one to use that method for all skills instead of the Method 2 I proposed.

[Gadodel]

I am thinking that another Figured Characteristic could be made. Figure the Intelligence Roll for the INT Score and use that as 'Education'. ???