Free Character Defining Skills

[Utech]

Aside from HERO, I am a big Call of Cthulhu fan. One of the things CoC does very well is to include apparently silly skills in the quick write-ups for NPCs. These skills seem silly because they do not seem to have any utility in the game. Often I find myself scanning through the NPC numbers and stumble upon such a skill. Over the years I've become convinced that they serve a very important purpose: they act as shorthand for understanding the character and how it is to be used.

I'd like to see this used in HERO as well. Players can be encouraged to add one or more skills to their character purely for the purpose of understanding that character. The skills cost no points and will almost certainly have no in-game utility.

CoC Examples:
Erupt in Frenzy 40%
Mumble Ominously 60%
Sinister Stare 75%
Shout Orders 85%
Stare Glassy-Eyed 80%
Squeeze Out Profits 75%
Shuffle Papers 25%
Get Attention 50%
Disapprove of "Townies" 100%
Give Strangers the Cold Shoulder 55%
Inflexible Religious Dogma 30%
Scream 80%
Be Subservient 80%
Shrug and Mumble 80%

Any thoughts on HERO Skills that might serve the same purpose? Here are a couple from me:
Appear Decisive 13-
Brood Dramatically in Shadows 14-
Hit Upon Solution With Mouth Full of Food 11-

[ghost-angel]

Any Skill that will never show up in Gameplay, but a Player wants to have for flavor purposes, shouldn't cost any points. Because it's fun to have a Character with some flavor.

[Balabanto]

My sentiment on this is that you have to prove to the GM the skill has no in-game utility, and he has to agree that it has no in-game utility. Many of the things you've suggested can already be rolled into other skills that are already in the game. I've had many times where the player said "Well, this skill is useless. Why should I have to pay for it?" And, of course, a few adventures later, the use of that skill turns out to be critical. So I generally don't let this happen.

[dmjalund]

I could see those giving characters bonuses to PRE ATTACKS and PRE based skills in very specific situations

[Nevelon]

Nice idea. This kind of thing helps keep players in character, and adds to the fun at the table. If you want to add rewards, letting them act as secondary skill roll should give them a little oomph. If you are going to use them mechanically, I'd cap them at 3-5.

My group uses 1 point "quirk" disads (up to 5) in a similar vein. "Addicted to coffee" or "snappy dresser" might not be full-on disads like dependence or distinctive feature, but they do help define the character and bring him to life. There have been many a time where those little one point wonders have had more impact then a 15 point psych limit.

[Sean Waters]

:) I like the idea: as you say though, the actual skill probably never really does anything but give the character flavour, so you could presumably do the same thing but leave out the skill check and have as much utility from it. I imagine that sort of thing is probably more useful for NPCs though - useful GM tool.

I have also used the '1 pt quirk' thing (which I first saw in another game system...Gurps, possibly) but I don't even usually bother with the points - just the snappy description.

I'd probably go even further in a lot of cases: a lot of personality traits are irrelevant to the overall balance and cost of the character and can sometimes be helpful, sometimes not. It would please me for a new character to come with (for instance) a short list of likes and dislikes that I could use in social situations. in fact, let us be more descriptive and call them Passions:

+I am passionate about science
+I am passionate about politics
+I am passionate about Italian Food
+I am passionate about Van Gogh

-I am passionate about domestic violence
-I am passionate about bankers
-I am passionate about bad journalism

The + or - sign indicates whether you are passionate in favour or against: that covers a lot of the personality and mental side. I might get a negative modifier is talking to a banker, a positive one if talking to a scientist, for example.

[Susano]

I have also used the '1 pt quirk' thing (which I first saw in another game system...Gurps, possibly) but I don't even usually bother with the points - just the snappy description.

I first saw Quirks in GURPS.

[tesuji]

CoC Examples:
Erupt in Frenzy 40%
Mumble Ominously 60%
Sinister Stare 75%
Shout Orders 85%
Stare Glassy-Eyed 80%
Squeeze Out Profits 75%
Shuffle Papers 25%
Get Attention 50%
Disapprove of "Townies" 100%
Give Strangers the Cold Shoulder 55%
Inflexible Religious Dogma 30%
Scream 80%
Be Subservient 80%
Shrug and Mumble 80%

Any thoughts on HERO Skills that might serve the same purpose? Here are a couple from me:
Appear Decisive 13-
Brood Dramatically in Shadows 14-
Hit Upon Solution With Mouth Full of Food 11-

I am absolutely of the impression that skills which wont matter are free.

However a number of the examples listed above would be IMO things like "+1 with social skills -X only for ominous stare kind of things. if it actually does draw attention to you or influence others, HERo does represent it easily enough with limited PRE or skill levels.

So yeah the premise is correct but there is a fine line between cheap small bonus which can be and IMo should be pointed and truly "just for flavor no effect" traits.

and i wouldn't call many of them skills.

[tesuji]

:)
I'd probably go even further in a lot of cases: a lot of personality traits are irrelevant to the overall balance and cost of the character and can sometimes be helpful, sometimes not. It would please me for a new character to come with (for instance) a short list of likes and dislikes that I could use in social situations. in fact, let us be more descriptive and call them Passions:

+I am passionate about science
+I am passionate about politics
+I am passionate about Italian Food
+I am passionate about Van Gogh

-I am passionate about domestic violence
-I am passionate about bankers
-I am passionate about bad journalism


I also tend to rob Ars magic for passions. i really liked their idea and find that "lateral bonuses" - a bonus which applies to anything but only in certain circumstances, to be very good for definition mechanically.

PASSIONATE ABOUT CARS applying to driving skill, to ks cars, to appraising cars and to fixing cars or even to shooting a car to cause it to break down - a "well placed shot" kind of deal.

In many cases though i would tend to represent this with a skill level or an overall level with appropriate valued lims to reflect the frequency of use.

useless fluff is free but infrequently useful definiton should simply be cheap.

[Burrito Boy]

There's a list of one hundred useless skills in the Tank Girl RPG. Stuff like being able to give a really good noogie and burping the alphabet.

[torchwolf]

There's a list of one hundred useless skills in the Tank Girl RPG. Stuff like being able to give a really good noogie and burping the alphabet.
*puts check mark in shopping list*
Just what I need. ;)

[Sidetrack]

Creative curses and profanity 13-
Graffiti and insulting caricature Artist 12-
Can prepare foods that cause PC to produce noxious body odors 12-

[Vondy]

If the skill's impact is cosmetic rather than meaningful, or only has meaningful effect once in a blue moon, I wouldn't charge for it. If it comes into play in a meaningful way even semi-regularly, however, I'd insist points be shelled out for it. I slap skills that flesh characters out without paying for them in this manner all the time.

[Hugh Neilson]

I find it unfortunate that this is even a question. We jump all over a "limitation that is not limiting" or "a disadvantage than is not disadvantageous" with knives drawn and mouths frothing, and we label any construct that seems to grant an advantage disproportionate with its cost as "Munchkin" without question. So why are so many of us so reluctant to apply the same logic to abilities? If the character's ability has no, or negligible, benefit in the game, it should not cost any points.

So I agree with Vondy's point, above. In fact, I would take that one step further. If I, as GM, allow you a -1/4 limitation for "not when immersed in grape juice", I and the player are agreeing that this character will, at times when he wishes to use this ability, find that he is immersed in grape juice often enough to justify a -1/4 limitation. If I cannot see that happening in the game, then I will reject the limitation at that value. Under exactly the same logic, if I allow the player to pay 5 points for KS: Golden Age Comic Book Artists (INT roll +1), then I have agreed to make such knowedge sufficiently useful, with sufficient frequency, to justify the cost of 5 points. If I'm not prepared to ensure this skill is occasionally useful in game - not just "I can use this as the hook to involve the character" or other such background, but actually relevant in solving challenges faced by the heroes, then it doesn't cost 5 points. If it's unlikely to be useful more than once in a blue moon (it would come up maybe once a season if the game were a TV show, for example), it's a background element that costs no points.

[Sketchpad]

Maybe make them something like Everyman Traits ... character can have X amount and they can add 1 to rolls in certain situations?

[Susano]

Considering that this is the standard set of Everyman Skills (as see in TUS), there's lots of room of them:


Acting 8-
AK: (local area) 8-
Climbing 8-
Concealment 8-
CuK: Native Culture 11-
Deduction 8-
KS: (choice) 8-
KS: (choice) 8-
KS: General Knowledge 11-
Language (native)
Paramedics 8-
Persuasion 8-
PS: (choice) 8-
PS: Perform Basic Chores And Menial Tasks 11-
Shadowing 8-
Stealth 8-
TF: (choice)

[prestidigitator]

Most of the original examples look more like minor Complication/Disadvantages than skills. If not one of those, since they don't really give any game benefit, why not just write them as quick bulleted behavioral notes in the character description? Everyone seems to like a quick, concise character sheet, but that tends to discount what a nice little description/notes area can add even if you're not ready to take the time for a full writeup.

Tthe CoC approach is very cute and humorous. It's a sort of wry way of mentioning behaviors by stating that the character is, "very good at," acting a certain way, implying they do it a LOT. (Conversely, I suppose you could put some down with really low chances, implying the character is very deficient in a certain area. Like, "Following Orders: 7%"). But there are other ways to state those things without confusing people about the skill system.

[JmOz]

Considering that this is the standard set of Everyman Skills (as see in TUS), there's lots of room of them:


Acting 8-
AK: (local area) 8-
Climbing 8-
Concealment 8-
CuK: Native Culture 11-
Deduction 8-
KS: (choice) 8-
KS: (choice) 8-
KS: General Knowledge 11-
Language (native)
Paramedics 8-
Persuasion 8-
PS: (choice) 8-
PS: Perform Basic Chores And Menial Tasks 11-
Shadowing 8-
Stealth 8-
TF: (choice)

I like some of the stuff you added to your list (the extra culture knowledge and PS)

[Matt Holck]

I'd add breakfall to the list
everyone has caught themselves from falling down

[Susano]

I'd add breakfall to the list
everyone has caught themselves from falling down

I'd argue that's just a DEX Roll, Breakfall is somewhat different.

[Susano]

I like some of the stuff you added to your list (the extra culture knowledge and PS)

That's not all mine. As I said, some of that is from The Ultimate Skill.

[Matt Holck]

I'd argue that's just a DEX Roll, Breakfall is somewhat different.

knockback shouldn't leave a character with out breakfall automatically prone

[drsid]

It would seem that everyman skills should be used for skills that every person in a setting/culture has that can have some potential use in the game. Some, however, are not necessarily skills but character traits and could be better represented in the description of the character's personality and background.

For example, Drive would be an everyman skill that does not need to be rolled except when driving under stress and in special circumstances. So everyone gets it.

But, I'm not sure what the purpose would be of writing down"perform basic chores and menial tasks" or "KS: general knowledge" on a character sheet. Would those not be a given? I mean, would you write down "Walk" as a skill? Of course not. Similarly, if a player needs to see if their character knows something about their own culture and life circumstances (i.e., general knowledge) why not just make a INT roll?

Too many skills that are not used clutter a character sheet and add needless complexity. If the skills are just being used to reflect the character's personality, profound ones can be reflected in complications and perks, while less profound ones can just be part of the description and roleplayed.

Now, this is not to say that one should not write down knowledge skills, even free ones. For example, lets say you have someone who lived in a foreign culture for a brief period of time. Depending on how much influence this has on the game it could be purchased as a KS or simply be given for free.

[Susano]

It would seem that everyman skills should be used for skills that every person in a setting/culture has that can have some potential use in the game. Some, however, are not necessarily skills but character traits and could be better represented in the description of the character's personality and background.

For example, Drive would be an everyman skill that does not need to be rolled except when driving under stress and in special circumstances. So everyone gets it.

But, I'm not sure what the purpose would be of writing down"perform basic chores and menial tasks" or "KS: general knowledge" on a character sheet. Would those not be a given? I mean, would you write down "Walk" as a skill? Of course not. Similarly, if a player needs to see if their character knows something about their own culture and life circumstances (i.e., general knowledge) why not just make a INT roll?

Too many skills that are not used clutter a character sheet and add needless complexity. If the skills are just being used to reflect the character's personality, profound ones can be reflected in complications and perks, while less profound ones can just be part of the description and roleplayed.

Now, this is not to say that one should not write down knowledge skills, even free ones. For example, lets say you have someone who lived in a foreign culture for a brief period of time. Depending on how much influence this has on the game it could be purchased as a KS or simply be given for free.

There is no skill named "Drive," but there is Transport Familiarity which allows you to (among other things) drive a car without needing to make a roll. There is also Combat Driving (which includes one TF for free) which allows one to operate a vehicle in chases, dog fights, and the like.

Anyway -- the skills I listed are presumed skills. You don't need to put them on your character sheet and you won't see them on a published character sheet. So, if you ever have a character with no skills listed, he still has the ones I presented. Also, one might have to make a roll for things like the PS: Perform Basic Chores And Menial Tasks 11- if you were badly injured, drugged, or intoxicated. It all depends on what level of complexity and/or detail you want.

[JmOz]

Also a character might be just plain knowledgable, thus why I use common Knowledge in case someone wants to buy it up. It also serves to see if they know something that is reasonable for someone to know but not for everyone to know

[Utech]

Tthe CoC approach is very cute and humorous. It's a sort of wry way of mentioning behaviors by stating that the character is, "very good at," acting a certain way, implying they do it a LOT. (Conversely, I suppose you could put some down with really low chances, implying the character is very deficient in a certain area. Like, "Following Orders: 7%"). But there are other ways to state those things without confusing people about the skill system.

This is exactly what I was getting at and what this thread was intended to address. I don't know how this could possibly confuse people about the skill system, though.

At any rate, thanks to those who have actually listed some skills that are to the point. The Tank Girl list is fun. I wonder if there might be more examples of HERO-appropriate skills that follow the CoC pattern.

[Susano]

This is exactly what I was getting at and what this thread was intended to address. I don't know how this could possibly confuse people about the skill system, though.

At any rate, thanks to those who have actually listed some skills that are to the point. The Tank Girl list is fun. I wonder if there might be more examples of HERO-appropriate skills that follow the CoC pattern.

I also like the sub-headers that come with each character.

[Matt Holck]

Defensive Maneuvers 4
moves about in such a way as appears to be considering unseen creatures?

[Karmakaze]

This is exactly what I was getting at and what this thread was intended to address. I don't know how this could possibly confuse people about the skill system, though.

At any rate, thanks to those who have actually listed some skills that are to the point. The Tank Girl list is fun. I wonder if there might be more examples of HERO-appropriate skills that follow the CoC pattern.

I've been known to use "Detect Bad Idea". It's never been completely clear, though, whether a success means that I have successfully had a bad idea (and will then act on it) or successfully identified what I am thinking as a bad idea (and will then choose not to act on it).

[bigbywolfe]

Defensive Maneuvers 4
moves about in such a way as appears to be considering unseen creatures?
What?

[Matt Holck]

sorry

Defense Maneuvers 3 5th edition
Eliminates multiple attacker bonus, even those which the character cannot perceive +3 points
(This does not allow the character to perceive the attackers;
instead, it simply means that the way the character moves in combat,
no one can get a clear shot at his(its) back regardless of whether the character knows they're there)

Defense Maneuver 4 5th edition
Acts as a sense
ie. the charcter need not spend a Half Phase to use his (its) Defense Maneuver. (using it takes no time)
any Combat Skill Levels which improve the character's DCV are considered Persistent for that purpose
+3 pointsPersistent suggests the DCV combat levels apply in non-combat
which means character must not allow a clear shot at its back when having a cup of Tea.

This is just the sort a thing a paranoid Cthulhu character might do.

[bigbywolfe]

From the OP:

Aside from HERO, I am a big Call of Cthulhu fan. One of the things CoC does very well is to include apparently silly skills in the quick write-ups for NPCs. These skills seem silly because they do not seem to have any utility in the game. Often I find myself scanning through the NPC numbers and stumble upon such a skill. Over the years I've become convinced that they serve a very important purpose: they act as shorthand for understanding the character and how it is to be used.

I'd like to see this used in HERO as well. Players can be encouraged to add one or more skills to their character purely for the purpose of understanding that character. The skills cost no points and will almost certainly have no in-game utility.

I don't see how any of the Defense Maneuvers could be considered "apparently silly" with no utility other than helping define the character, nor can I see someone trying to get them for free under that premise...

[Matt Holck]

sorry, you are correct

silly walks 13-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZlBUglE6Hc