Is Hero still your "go-to" rpg system?

[Opal]

20 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

There are myriad little problems, but I think the most important one is lock out. 

 

Look at the example given above: for every single skill created, you are making the rule that 'no other skill does this.'.

 I like to say adding to a skill list "creates incompetence." Your 1st ed character with Detective Work was a competent Detective.  Then the game adds Deduction, well, you're no Sherlock anymore but you can still be Sam Spade.  Then Criminology, Conversation, and Shadowing are added - and what can your Detective even do?

 

38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

character did not have the skill, then he made a characteristic roll.  It was Miller's stance that a list of skills could not possibly be assembled that would cover even a portion of what a character actually knew, and that listed skills-those skills actually on the character sheet-represented those things at which the character was exceptionally-well trained or learned

And that reminds me that Hero already has Skill Levels, and why couldn't we just use those?

 

 

[Opal]

On 2/17/2023 at 9:52 AM, Old Man said:

To this day I don't understand why, out of all the frameworks, EC was the one to get axed. 

I think maybe because its the framework most like figured characteristics?

 

Supers that rely heavily on stats, and thus "save points" on figured characteristics - martial artists, speedsters, and especially bricks - have some obvious/consistent abilities.  Like, they're going to be doing normal, physical, damage.  There are obvious ways of dealing with them.  The same is sorta true of EC types, once you throw an ice blast, the rest of your power suite is a tad predictable, and if an arid environment shuts it down, it probably shuts it all down.

 

An a la carte set of powers, not so much.

[Duke Bushido]

20 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

I agree that guidance is important. Really, at that point is a bump of the rules or one of the game master?

 

Well, the Game Master has to learn from something, and if the goal is new blood to the game, that new blood will not have a game master from whom to learn.  This points to a need for some sort of in-rules guidance, if only a discussion of the various "breadths" of skills and their impact on the shape of the game. 

 

 

20 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

 

 

Could you revert to a PS skill that can be used as a blanket skill?

 

 

 

 

I have had a love / hate relationship with the current format of Hero skills-- the breakdown and separation of PS, KS, and Familiarity-since it debuted in 4e.  Does a PS include the necessary knowledge to actually have developed the PS in the first place?  Does it not? 

 

Should a KS represent only the sorts of things which are purely knowledge, and for which there is no true "profession," such as KS: College football or KS: priceless collections of ancient Etruscan snoods? Or even KS: streets of San Francisco? 

 

Just what the hell is the point of a familiarity when it seems an 8 or less KS would be the same thing? 

 

 

 

As to reverting a PS to be a catch-all:

 

Is that what is going on?  Is it actually being reverted?  Is being able to perform something professionally not indicative of a broader underlying knowledge and appropriate training?

 

Obviously, that depends entirely on you assumptions.  If you believe it is possible to operate professionally as a policeman without having any actual policeman-related knowledge or education, then no; it will not work for your games.  If you believe that you can't actually develop the skills of a professional without working in the field, which requires that you already have appropriate knowledge related to performing in the field, then again: it works. 

 

Similarly, if you believe that KS is best reserved for not _all_ academic knowledge, but as a specific  indicator that the knowledge possessed is academic -_only_, then it works fine. 

 

On the other hand, if you believe it is possible to have held a job in accounting without actually knowing anything about accounting, then no; it will not work.  Your accountant will need both a PS and a KS. 

 

 

It boils down to a simple problem, or rather, it starts with a simple question:

Should we assume that 'lesser' items of a skill are folded in?  Should we assume that they are not? 

 

 

19 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

I think we just run different types of games.

 

That is a given.  I haven't used much of anything skill-wise that isn't pre-fourth edition except by special request, the only real exception being my heroic level sci-fi games, and even then, I use the skills from Star Hero and Robot Warriors before considering a KS /PS set up. 

 

But that wasn't really the point; the point was more along the lines of is this a good system or a frustratingly bad system?  No one _could_ run a game where all skills are broken into their unique mosy individualized actions as separate skills.  Even with infinity points to spend, just how many smaller knowledges are covered in physics skill?   How many in 'computer programming?'".  There should be a language chart for that, too. 

 

Every single skill from 4e onward-we talk about broad versus narrow and which works, and at the end of the day, no one is doing purely one or the other:  how many of the narrow science skills include observation, record-keeping, research skills, and even algebra?  Why are they not broken out as their own skills? 

 

Every single division- every single skill itself, built using this system, is completely arbitrary, leaving new students floundering about to figure out a solution or a possible "best," and they are doing it blind, because even the rule book offers diddly squat for guidance. 

 

That was the point I was trying to get across.  Skills are totally arbitrary with this system, at every level, and there isn't anything that addresses it beyond  a few-hundred rehash threads like this one.  Even when 4e first landed with this, it always felt like "I could see how this was going to go in my head, but I couldn't quite get it to gell, so I gave up, but I had too much invested to throw it away, so.... Good luck!" and it has just been sort of left there, aside from periodic cheers about how wonderfully open-ended it is. 

 

 

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

I believe that's where a character can shine the most. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, but rather it's not for me (especially after running narrow skill systems for so long).

 

 

I don't believe anyone is wrong about the skill system, either.  It isn't complete enough to screw it up. 

 

But out of curiosity, what is your general rule of thumb for "narrow enough?". Even collecting fingerprints has multiple steps, each with different actions and different supplies.  Is this a PS or a KS, or is it something you have decided requires both? 

 

To be absolutely clear:

 

I am not picking on you nor am I saying that you aren't going narrow enough.  I am just making the point that every one of us has a stopping point on specificity, and that ultimately, it is completely arbitrary, and likely to vary not just from GM to GM, but from skill to skill. 

 

We can tout it as brilliant and innovative, or we can accept that it is a level of broken that we are okay with, but realistically, the only changes I would like to see is some official in-the-rules guidance, even if it did the ol' "and here are eleven options" thing that has come to characterize the current edition. 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Opal said:

 I like to say adding to a skill list "creates incompetence."

 

Thank you.  I could not come up with a more descriptive term than "lock out," at the time.  I like the analogy you have created there, so long as everyone is clear that it is not derision. Well done. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Opal said:

 

And that reminds me that Hero already has Skill Levels, and why couldn't we just use those?

 

 

 

 

I do.  I gave a rough example of how up above. 

 

I figure if they are good enough to fake martial arts, they are good enough to fake skills, too. 

 

 

This is also why I was so tickled at the idea of taking "terrible scientist: - r to all science-based INT rolls"  it would actually work at my table, but I think we can all see the immediate abuses of allowing such a disadvantage. 

 

 

 

Have you guys never wondered why of all the people on this forum, I am the guy who doesnt post character write-ups? 

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Elemental Controls basically rewarded people for having a tight concept and sticking to it, but I mean... everyone should have a tight concept and stick to it.  It was free points, really.  I like the "unified powers" thing better as a build, because Elemental Control just felt like slipping one past the GM every time.

[Opal]

I don't want to revisit the  conspiracy to eliminate all cost breaks, but, yeah, that was the point.  EC and figured characteristics reflected the inherent downside or diminishing returns of a reasonable tight or straightforward concept from the effectiveness pov (and thus also encouraged them, because, yes, they're desirable in a narrative sense, too), but were perceived as powergamey free points.

 

 

[Sketchpad]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

. I believe that's where a character can shine the most. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, but rather it's not for me (especially after running broad skill systems for so long).

 

 

I don't believe anyone is wrong about the skill system, either.  It isn't complete enough to screw it up. 

 

But out of curiosity, what is your general rule of thumb for "narrow enough?". Even collecting fingerprints hs multiple steps, each with different actions and different supplies.  Is this a PS or a KS, or is it something you have decided requires both? 

 

To be absolutely clear:

 

I  not picking on you nor am I saying that you aren't going narrow enough.  I am just making the point that every one of us has a stopping point on specificity, and that ultimately, it is completely arbitrary, and likely to vary not just from GM to GM, but from skill to skill. 

 

We can tout it as brilliant and innovative, or we can accept that it is a level of broken that we are okay with, but realistically, the only changes I would like to see is some official in-the-rules guidance, even it did the ol' "and here are eleven options" thing that has come to characterize the current edition. 

 

 

First, I apologize. I meant broad not narrow and have made that correction here (and in the original post). 

Collecting Fingerprints? I would use Criminology. If someone had a PS: Criminologist (or a useful KS), I might allow a synergy bonus of some kind. 

 

Oh, I agree that we all run things differently. You see that from group to group, sometimes even under the same GM. In that spirit, I don't see the skill system as overly flawed. Could it be better? I guess you'd have to ask each person. Personally, I preferred 4th ed overall, but I don't mind 6th (or 5th) either. Heck, I REALLY tried to like C:NM.

[Doc Democracy]

14 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

 

I think we just run different types of games. Sure, you could use a "Super Science" skill to cover everything, but, for me, that loses some of the charm of the game. One of the elements I've always enjoyed in the examples I listed is to see how certain specialties are used in comics (particularly in the comics). The same could be said about looking at the Bat-Family of characters. Each has their own method of working on a crime, and some overlap better than others. Should there be a "Crime Fighter" skill to cover everything they can do? If it works in your game, awesome. For me, I'd prefer the extra details. I believe that's where a character can shine the most. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, but rather it's not for me (especially after running broad skill systems for so long).

 

I'm not so certain we run hugely different types of games.  I appreciate detail, all I am talking about is how that detail gets accounted for in the game.

 

So, say I gave players 350 points to build their characters and tell them that they can have two keywords each for skills (for free).

 

Each of those keywords contains the skills they need to "live" that keyword, like an extra two sets of everyman skills.

 

Batman takes Playboy and Detective.  Each of these come in at 11 or less. I am happy, on their character sheet to put as many skills as we agree fit underneath that keyword heading, skills that EveryPlayboy and EveryDetective "could" have.

 

I would allow them to individually raise skills within that for +1 per point spent.  I would allow 8 point skill levels for specific use in keywords and, if 10 skills are raised by 1 point, the whole keyword goes up by one.

 

I would also encourage the use of non-standard skills (not in the book) like "Make impressive entrance" to allow this to give colour and to add things on the fly, if we agree they fitted within the concept of the keyword.

 

I don't think this constrains a rich description of what the character can do.  I can see some players sticking with the two keywords, a few skill levels and possibly adding in a few free-standing skills that are obviously outside the keywords. I can see others wanting to list a vast number of sub-skills that both define and characterise the kind of Playboy, or Detective, their character is.

 

It means there is flexibility within the system for those that want it, and detail available without exorbitant cost.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

I think we just run different types of games. Sure, you could use a "Super Science" skill to cover everything, but, for me, that loses some of the charm of the game. One of the elements I've always enjoyed in the examples I listed is to see how certain specialties are used in comics (particularly in the comics). The same could be said about looking at the Bat-Family of characters. Each has their own method of working on a crime, and some overlap better than others. Should there be a "Crime Fighter" skill to cover everything they can do? If it works in your game, awesome. For me, I'd prefer the extra details. I believe that's where a character can shine the most. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, but rather it's not for me (especially after running broad skill systems for so long).

 

This comes back to Duke's point, really.  How will those skills be used in-game?  The Supers examples of Tony Stark, Hank Pym, Reed Richards, Bruce Banner, toss in Peter Parker illustrate this.  What was their actual specialty, drawn from what they did in the comics, not from what got retconned in later?

 

I suppose Tony Stark was more an engineer, in fairness.  He didn't seem to do much "pure science". Bruce Banner did not get a lot of opportunities to use his science skills, and when he did it tended to be weapons-related, if not fully GammaRay specific.

 

Reed Richards built incredible whatsits to aid the FF, and we know he was a rocket scientist since the FF got their powers using his rockets.  But he had pretty much any science skill needed by the story, right down to developing a serum to allow people to breathe underwater (and even to allow the Human Torch to use his flame powers).

 

Hank Pym was later "a biochemist" but whenever the Avengers needed a science solution, he'd generally provide it if we was on the team.  Stark would build things, though.

 

Peter Parker was able to check his own blood for radioactivity, build those webshooters and the adhesives they use, design a device that suppressed the Vulture's flight, modify his webbing to incorporate acids so strong they fused two of Dr. Octopus' tentacles (without damaging those web shooters) and prepare a serum to cure the Lizard.  And we're not up to Spider-Man #6 yet, are we?  All this on a budget that made rent and groceries hard to afford, and before even graduating high school.

 

If it's actually going to matter whether the characters are engineers, researchers or inventors; whether they know physics, chemistry or biology; whether that's astrophysics, quantum physics or geophysics; pharmacology, biochemistry or organic chemistry; botany, zoology or microbiology; then let's break the skills down. 

 

But that really presupposes a game so science-based that most or all characters will have skills in some branch of science.  Similarly, if the game will focus on medicine, go beyond simple "Medicine" as a skill, and if it will feature courtroom drama, KS: Law may no longer cut it.

 

But if we have a team of, say, Hank Pym (Scientist), Thor (Dr. Don Blake, MD), Daredevil (Lawyer) - why are their "one to a character" jobs so compelling that they need to spend significant points to flesh them out in minute detail?

 

In the Bat-Family example, everyone is a crimefighter, a normal human and an investigator.  One skill encompassing that will make everyone identical, rather than making a single criminologist/investigator unique and different from the other PCs.  Now we need multiple skills.

 

That's where the guidance Duke is suggesting is needed - GM, tailor the depths of skills and subskills to your game.  Maybe that means taking a skill we'd often assume is "one size fits all" (like Survival) and instead require another point invested for each sub-skill (6e Survival).

[Joe Walsh]

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I am not familiar with Supers, save having heard it mentioned in these forums a few times.   I am not shooting it down, of course-- I can't! I know nothing about it. 

 

I know that it is diddifuclt to keep track of the details of what are essentially faceless strangers with a common hobby, so as I soft reminder, allow me to politely state that by and large, Superheroes isn't my bag.  I have, and do still, played _a lot_ of Champions, because after my Travellers /Tunnles and Trolls group broke up (the GM's wife was military, and had been reassigned to anither duty station) way back in '79, the next non DnD group I found was a Champions group, and even if supers was not my favorite, I confess to having a romantic appreciation for clear-cut good guys and dastardly villains, so as long as the story is good, I can play supers. 

 

I was never a comic book kid (gearhead for life.  Even as a kid, I loved tearing into engines and seeing if I could get them running again), so I had no serious self-insertion attraction to the settings or the characters, nor even a serious understanding of the tropes (he was bombarded with radiation and then _What?!! _. No-no-no-!  I think you misread that.  I think you meant gelatinous death via rapid cellular destruction and tissue degeneration.  Or at least cancer, and lots of it). 

 

My preference is science fiction, my hear belongs to Classic Traveller, Cyberpunk is great from the 80's interpretation of the genre, and tied with post-apocalyptic adventures (and what is Cyberpunk but a unique take on an apocalypse of social structure and not just the human race/?).  You heard that right: I loved Gama World despite it's absolute goofiness (up until the garbage that was 3e),  had a love/hate relationship with Aftermath, and all of our Car Wars games were straight up Mad Max.  There were two dozen other failed post-apoc games on the shelves, and I tried most of them. Pulp action is fun, but the people who really "get it" started dying off twenty-five years ago, and I can get into a well-realized non DND fantasy game. 

 

Then, after all that, comes superheroes and war gaming, in a constant switching of which I would prefer in that moment. To be fair, war gaming would win more consistently if I wasn't terrible at it. 

 

After all that there is going to work, complete social isolation, self-mutilation, and striking my thumb with a hammer.  Just beyond that there is DnD, and finally, when self-torture starts to seem sort of pleasant, there is LARP. 

 

After that is taking a third job, then bobbing for French fries, eating okra, and then military RPGs.  Those games where you are not your own agent and are tasked with goals in which you have no actual interest, and then get shot and die.   It's like the retail industry simulator; why on earth would I want to do that to relax?

 

Finally, at the bottom of the bottom, like the earth beneath the feet of the elephants that support the world (unless you are one of those who believes it is just more elephants all the way down forever, you heathen, you) , there are collectible card games. 

 

😂 OK, that's hilarious. Are you sure you weren't a humor columnist in another life?

 

Glad to meet you. I'll try to remember your proclivities, but honestly it can take me as much as a year of repetition to remember people's names even when I interact with them regularly in real life, so I won't promise anything. I'll undoubtedly embarrass myself at least a few more times. Fortunately we're not far off in which genres we like, so maybe I'll do better. I'll sure try.

 

Your view of Traveller sounds very similar to mine (I run mixes of the editions put out before Mega, but like you I stick with book 1 chargen; even though I was part of the crew brought in to try to save T4 from the mess it initially was, none of the post-Classic editions have been long-term favorites of mine). I, too, was a fan of Gamma World pre-3e (long live the artifact system -- well, longer than some of the characters who used it, anyway! 😂) As far as cyberpunk, I liked the Shadowrun flavor best, but R. Talsorian's game was fine too. (Yet somehow the "rocker" thing always made me cringe.)

 

As far as supers, I became a fan of that later than most: senior year of high school (1986). One of the guys I was friendly with at school introduced me to Marvel's Strikeforce: Maurituri, a comic set in Marvel's "New Universe" (something they launched with much ballyhoo but it died ignobly not long after).  Before that I'd only had a brief childhood fascination with reruns of the 1960s Batman show. I'd never picked up supers comics at all. But Strikeforce intrigued me. Its heroes were regular people who chose to join a military force to defend Earth against alien invaders...and who therefore voluntarily underwent a process that would give them each one random superpower...but that process would also ensure they'd die within one year. So you had great pathos built in from the start, plus an ever-changing cast of characters -- not one of whom had plot armor. Quite the reverse, actually. And, as one character pointed out, there were no guarantees: you could end up with the superpower of cutting lawns perfectly evenly and then die an hour after you got that power. C'est la vie!

 

The funny thing is that up to that point I was our group's most popular GM and members of the group were comic fans who wanted very much for me to run a superhero game. So I'd been using Champions to do so for a few years at that point, faking it until I could make it. That got a lot easier after picking up Strikeforce and then a bunch of other comic tiles not long after. But up until then, running Champions was probably the hardest I've ever worked at being GM. 😅 (TSR's Marvel Super Heroes helped a lot when it came out in '84; it not only had some pretty decent adventure modules adapted from comic book storylines, it also had a multivolume printed character database with full stats that I spent a lot of time poring over).

 

On the other hand, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on okra. I ate a lot of fried okra growing up, and I still enjoy it immensely when I can get it. My wife hates the stuff, though, and I rarely bother to make it just for myself. (Fried green tomatoes, too -- loved those growing up, still love 'em, but my wife doesn't care for them at all so I've had them maybe once or twice in the last 30 years.)

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

The shorter version of all this is the alternate ways to play superheroes really aren't on my radar at all, but if I find an inexpensive PDF for Supers, I might check it out for the skills system. 

I may be able to save you some trouble. The free Quickstart doesn't give details of the "Aptitude" (skills) system unfortunately.  And it looks like the core rules PDF's going for $10 these days. Probably not worth buying to see the Aptitude system, honestly! You'd just get a list of "aptitude" categories which I think you can kind of infer from the character examples in the Quick Start. The full aptitude system is kind of a HERO-esque mishmash: "academia" is like every academic KS in one, while Animal Handling is...just animal handling. Military is how to work within a military structure and conduct military operations, and Performance is all performing arts (including lying), and Sleight of Hand is just sleight of hand. All specializeable of course, but the breadth of what you get with the initial purchase sure varies a lot between categories. A lot like HERO. The key difference is there's not even an implied assumption you're going to start out with a bunch of narrow skills or immediately specialize every bit of knowledge or professional expertise into its own separate skill. Instead it combines some HERO skills into one category (for example, Technology gives you Computer Programming, Sensor Ops, Mechanics, Weaponsmithing, and a lot more) and in other cases leaves narrower skill categories standing on their own. That's the way it goes, though.

 

I think anyone reasonably familiar with HERO System and game design could come up with something similar if they wanted to without needing to refer to any other system. But we're kind of stuck with a lot of HERO's individual skills if we're leaving 6e as written in other respects. The 'permission to make a maneuver' skills like Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Attack seem too powerful to fold into one skill for example. And no matter the edition, I'm not sure we'd really want to do much with Language or the various Skill Levels. But the small skills like Bureaucracy and Lockpicking and Climbing can probably be rolled up into fewer, broader categories without much of a problem if we wanted to go that route. It'd just be a matter of identifying them and then setting up appropriate categories like "Academics" and "Persuasion" or "Espionage" and "Soldier" depending on how we want to flavor the groupings.

 

Whether the result would be something for one campaign by one GM or would work well for everyone for a broad swath of campaigns will be the brain sweat part.

 

But that's kinda the problem with modifying an existing system, as we all know. Even stuff that looks like a simple change will have unexpected effects down the line. 🤷‍♂️

[Steve]

I’m wondering if the comic book age of a setting will affect how skills should be treated. Some of the examples given above are straight out of the Silver Age, which had more of a whiz bang view of science than a modern setting does.

 

For Golden, Atomic or Silver Age settings, a much simpler skill structure seems better, but maybe something more granular fits for more modern settings?

[Joe Walsh]

16 hours ago, Opal said:

And that reminds me that Hero already has Skill Levels, and why couldn't we just use those?

 

You're right, for decreasing the cost of buying skills in bulk, Skill Levels (and Enhancers) do the job. I just wish many characters didn't have any reason to buy in bulk in the first place. 😄

 

But the more I dig into it, the better it sounds to just use the existing system differently rather than trying to modify it without breaking something else.

 

Specifying that for /this/ campaign PS:Whatever includes the ability to know and do everything that the job would require seems like it will work while risking little. Sort of like Wildcard skills in GURPS (but so far without the cost). Hmm. 🧐

[Opal]

38 minutes ago, GM Joe said:

You're right, for decreasing the cost of buying skills in bulk, Skill Levels (and Enhancers) do the job. I just wish many characters didn't have any reason to buy in bulk in the first place.

Ultimately, each skill lets you make some 9+(some char)/5 or less check that, otherwise, the GM wouldn't have let you make.

 

But, like, why not? 

 

If 1 lousy point gets you an 8-, why not a 6- or a raw stat check @ 5 less?  If you have some similar skill why not that a lesser penalty?

 

Actually, I doubt there's much of a problem with that last idea.

 

But, if not having a skill can be dealt with as a penalty, then having one is the same as levels - and levels have a cost structure that recognizes diminishing returns.  And, y'know, Hero scaling. 

 

[Joe Walsh]

14 minutes ago, Opal said:

But, if not having a skill can be dealt with as a penalty, then having one is the same as levels - and levels have a cost structure that recognizes diminishing returns.  And, y'know, Hero scaling.

 

Buy Skill Levels for use only with Characteristic rolls when used in lieu of Skills? 4 points for +1 on INT "skill" rolls, 4 points for +1 on PRE "skill" rolls, 6 points for +1 on DEX "skill" rolls? Or am I completely off base?

 

[Opal]

....Yeah?  But instead of skills? Or even just as a thought experiment around how much should skills cost/how many skills there should be?

 

Like Overall Levels at 10 pts for +1 to anything have been a feature, from Champions 1st through Hero 6th, right? A solid benchmark.

If you think of lacking a skill as a penalty to a roll, like an 11- or a normal 10 stat or general skill, taking a -5 or -8 or -11 whatever conveys that, then an upper bound for "character buys every skill," should reasonably be around 50 to 100 points. (And that fits the very old power design maxim that 50 points should be good, a power you can hang your superhero cape on, and 100pts sgould be just wonderful)

 

Now, I know at some point there was an explicit rule that you can't add levels if you don't have the skill - but, like some other rules about skills, and many skills, themselves - it seems like it's there to justify skills, when they don't really fit the game that well. (And it also sounds like an early iteration of the "buy it the most expensive way" maxim.)  Maybe? 

IDK, I'm just noodling around the wrong side of a long-settled issue.

 

[Steve]

A mention of Jack Of All Trades from Traveller Hero probably deserves a mention at this point, since it was just a construct of skill levels. A more limited form of it could be easily constructed to just apply to Science skills or any other grouping of similar skills.

 

I could also see an argument for buying a Skill Enhancer like Linguist and then just buying single points in different languages and calling them full fluency thanks to the enhancer’s effect. For ten points that would mean the character is fully fluent in seven languages, which seems reasonable.

[Spence]

On 1/18/2023 at 3:28 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

I’ve seen the 2D20 around. I think its for the newest Conan and John Carter. How are the mechanics?

 

10 hours ago, Spence said:

 

Sorry for the super late reply.

 

Modiphious is the company and they have several games sporting the 2d20 system beside Conan and John Carter.  Achtung! Cthulhu, Dune, Fallout, Dishonored, Homeworld, Infinity and Star Trek Adventures. Cohors Cthulhu is in development. 

 

I really enjoy the Star Trek game. 

 

I am running short on time and have to get on the road or I'll be late.  I will give rundown on the mechanics tonight. 

 

 

OK, 2d20 in a nutshell
First is that the game runs on a Momentum/Threat.  Threat can also be called Doom depending on Genre of game.  In Conan it is Doom, In Start Trek Adventures it is Threat.  The Momentum/Threat economy is the core of what makes drama and action flow in 2d20, whether it is a Cimmerian Barbarian battling a horde of Picts or a Star Fleet Engineer racing against time to stabilize the warp core.  

 

But before we get into those details let’s look at the resolution system.

 

The system uses d20’s and modified d6’s.  
The d20’s are straight up but the d6’s have the following:
1, 2, blank, blank, 1+effect, 1+effect

 

Success and failure is determined by rolling a d20 dice pool to achieve enough “successes” to equal or exceed the “test difficulty”.  

 

A d20 dice pool that maxes out at 5d20.
Normal everyday NPC’s and creatures (minions) start with 1d20.
PC’s and non-minor NPC’s and creatures start with 2d20 (hence the name of the system)
Additional d20’s can be purchased by spending availed Momentum or buying them by giving the GM Threat.  
This applies to any resolution regardless of being combat, social conflict, skills or attribute tests.

 

Getting a “success” is achieved by rolling under your target number with a d20.  Each incarnation of the 2d20 games has a slightly different take on how you determine that target number.

A small detour to explain two versions of Attributes & Skills

 

In Conan:
You have 7 Attributes (Such as Agility, Awareness, Braun, etc.) and skills that are linked to attributes.  Each Skill has an Expertise (skill level) and may have a Focus.  A PC’s attributes are usually in the teens and expertise starts at 0 and slowly works up a point or two at a time. I have rarely seem a Focus exceed 3, with 1 being the norm.

 

For example:
The Attribute Agility has three linked skills.  The agility score is the Target Number for a basic agility roll and is also the base number for each skill below it.  If Agility was 10, then all skills under it would be at a TN of 10.  Skills can be improved and make have focuses which are a then of specializing within a skill.

Agility:  10
Acrobatics: +0 = TN 10
Melee: +4 = TN 14  Long Sword (focus 2)
Stealth: +1 = TN 11

 

In Star Trek:
They take a simpler approach since all Star Fleet Officers are supposed to be inherently competent and it is a space opera where you do not want to stifle the technobabble.  Star Trek Adventures (STA) has Six Attributes and six Disciplines that replace Skills.  They are: Attributes = Control, Fitness, Presence, Daring, Insight and Reason & Disciplines = Command, Security, Science, Conn, Engineering and Medicine. Like Conan, attribute tend to be in the teens but Disciplines can be anywhere from 1 to 5 or 6.  There is nothing that says they cannot go higher, but I have not seen any in game.  A discipline can have a focus.  

 

For example TOS Captain Kirk has:
Control 09    Fitness 09    Presence 10
Daring 11    Insight 09    Reason 08

 

Command 05    Security 03     Science 02
Conn 02    Engineering 03    Medicine 01

 

With focuses in:
Hand-to-Hand Combat
History
Leadership
Persuasion
Phasers
Starship Tactics

 

Now back to how to get a success.

In Conan it is pretty straight forward.  If the PC is in combat and wants to hit the enemy they look at their skill Melee.  In our example Melee has a TN of 14, so any d20 that rolls 14 or lower is a success! But wait!!  If our intrepid hero in the example is using a Long Sword (Focus of 2) that any d20 that rolls 2 or 1 counts as TWO successes.  So if the PC rolls 2d20 (the base number available) they have the ability to get from 0 to 4 successes.

 

For STA it is slightly different.  The TN is generated by selecting an Attribute and adding a Discipline.  
The landing party is locked in a brawl with a group of Orion Smuggles on Cestus 3.  Kirk wants to knock out his opponent as soon as possible.  Which combo is used?  Daring and Security?  Or maybe Fitness and Security?  It all depends on how the player describes their intent and actions.  It is flexible.  Lets go with Daring and Security, it is Kirk after all. So the TN is 14.  If the player takes the time to use it in their narrative, the Hand-to-Hand Combat could apply.  In STA a if a focus applies than any roll that is under the Discipline counts as two successes.  So in this case with Security being 3, every d20 that gets a 1, 2 or 3 is two successes.   

 

As I mentioned before every PC starts with 2d20, but how do you get more?  The two primary method are either to spend available Momentum or give the GM Threat/Doom.  If available you get one additional d20 for each Momentum spent or alternatively you can give the GM one additional Threat/Doom for each additional d20. Up to a maximum of 5d20’s.

 

In the example, it is the beginning of the brawl so there is no Momentum yet, so he gives the GM 3 Threat and rolls a full 5d20.  So we now know how many dice, but how many successes to be able to hit?

 

Task Difficulty (TD). The GM sets a number of 0 to 5 (in STA, can be higher, 0-6 in Conan).   If the number of successes equals or exceeds the TD you succeeded.  The exact TD depends on how Dramatic the scene is.  The brawl is taking place in a dark alley so we will set the TD at 2 rather than the normal 1 for unarmed combat.

 

Using his famous two handed hammer blow, Kirk attempts to strike the Orion thug.  Rolling 5d20 he gets 14, 11, 10, 5 and 2.  All are successes but with the focus the roll generates 6 successes easily landing the blow.  Unarmed Melee is rated at 1d6 plus Knockdown effect with +d6 equal to Security so Kirk’s blow does 4d6+Knockdown.  But wait!  We have 6 success and only need 2! What happens to the “unused” 4 successes.  While there can be several options based on exact game, the basic option are spend each success to add an additional d6 or let them go into the Momentum pool.  Kirks player knows that one of the PC’s is a science type with very little ability in a physical fight, so they opt to buy one more d6 and put 3 points into momentum.  

 

Kirk rolls 5d6 getting: 2, blank, 1+effect, 1+e, 1=e.  For a total of  5 plus 2 effect.  Since the only effect available is knockdown, Kirk does 5 stress (damage) and knocks the thug to the deck.

 

Effects with a Disruptor can get nasty, while an effect in an extended task to stabilize the reactor can be pretty beneficial.  

 

The next PC can use those three Momentum to buy dice or even trigger effects if their d6’s rolled bad.  The Momentum pool maxes out at 6 and losses one for each complete turn (all characters have acted).  I use big 2” d6’s to track momentum since everyone can see them.  The die gets passed to the acting player.  

 

Threat/Doom is pool that is used by the GM for practically everything.  Instead of initiative in Conan the players always act first in whatever order they wish.  The GM spends Doom to “interrupt” and allow an NPC/Creature to act.  Want to roll more that 1d20 for a mob, spend Doom.  Cast a spell, Doom.  Trigger an effect, Doom.  STA uses Threat the same way.  PC’s tracking a group of Romulans through the coastal hills and need sudden rain squall, Threat.  

Pretty much everything a GM wants to do runs on Threat/Doom.

 

Each specific game has its differences.  Take the brawl above.  In the example Kirk was just rolling against a TD.  If the opponent had been a Notable or Major NPC, the roll would have been an opposed roll where you compare successes.  

 

While Conan has the same sword swinging vibe as many games.  STA can actually make non-combat activities feel as dramatic as combat.  I ran a STA game for a con that feel on Halloween.  It was a Star Trek meets Eldritch Horror cross over where there were three simultaneous momentum pools running.  One team of PC’s trying to stabilize the outposts reactors long enough for the crew to escape, one team trying to repair the damaged archer class starship so it could be used to escape and the last team trying to hold off the swarming spider horrors long enough to let the other teams get done.   It was a non-stop roller coaster with as many groans for a missed engineering roll that generated a setback as for a Redshirt Extra getting swarmed.  Once everyone understood that their action narrative directly affected things and that Momentum and Threat were meant to be spent with wild abandon the game really took off.  Everyone had a great time and the rest of my games that con were filled with me squeezing in extras.  

 

All in all, it is a great system.  But it does rely on the players being able to let loose and realize it is not D&D or PF where your PC’s are limited to specific and rigidly defined abilities.  In STA and John Carter especially where skills have been replaced by broad categories that are open to interpretation limited only by the players imagination.    

[Opal]

23 minutes ago, Steve said:

I could also see an argument for buying a Skill Enhancer like Linguist and then just buying single points in different languages and calling them full fluency

 And there's already been a "Universal Translator" in at least one version of the game, right?

[Joe Walsh]

42 minutes ago, Opal said:

....Yeah?  But instead of skills? Or even just as a thought experiment around how much should skills cost/how many skills there should be?

 

Like Overall Levels at 10 pts for +1 to anything have been a feature, from Champions 1st through Hero 6th, right? A solid benchmark.

If you think of lacking a skill as a penalty to a roll, like an 11- or a normal 10 stat or general skill, taking a -5 or -8 or -11 whatever conveys that, then an upper bound for "character buys every skill," should reasonably be around 50 to 100 points. (And that fits the very old power design maxim that 50 points should be good, a power you can hang your superhero cape on, and 100pts sgould be just wonderful)

 

Now, I know at some point there was an explicit rule that you can't add levels if you don't have the skill - but, like some other rules about skills, and many skills, themselves - it seems like it's there to justify skills, when they don't really fit the game that well. (And it also sounds like an early iteration of the "buy it the most expensive way" maxim.)  Maybe? 

IDK, I'm just noodling around the wrong side of a long-settled issue.

 

 

Ah, I think I get it now. Thank you for being patient. It takes me a minute sometimes.

 

But that's an interesting approach. As @Steve pointed out, we already have a model for "every skill" in the Jack of all Trades skill from Traveller HERO, which puts it at 4 points per +1 (only to negate skill penalties) for all noncombat skills. Under 6e it'd be 5 points for the same thing.

 

Which implies a broad group like we're talking about would be 2 points per +1 under either edition (rounding).

 

Hmm.

 

[Opal]

(This isn't a response to anyone, just me continuing to ramble.)

 

I've been going on about skill levels as/vs skills because levels do fit with the rest of the game.  You can define a level as a +1 in almost anything you can roll, its open-ended.  And you can define it broadly or narrowlyAs you buy a broader level, the cost per +1 goes up, but the cost per thing you're able to add to goes down. (And there's an upper bound, the 10pt overall level that has ultimate breadth). From +1 OCV with your EB for 2pts, to +1 with your whole multipower for 3, to 5pt all OCV levels. Why? Free points? No, because you're getting less, you're not going to use every attack every phase, you're really only ever getting two points of benefit.  Call it diminishing returns or redundancy, but, at best, you're not overpaying. 

 

Skills are sorta similar in structure, you can define almost any skill into being, and some are broader or narrower. But, instead of paying more for a very broad skill or a lot for a theoretical upper-bound omniskill, narrow skills are just vaguely expected to give better results, oh, and provide complementary skill checks (which, hey, a bonus, don't skill levels do that) And you just buy more of them. The more skills you have on your sheet the less likely it is you'll use a given one in a given session - and the more likely there'll be some you /never/ use, at all. 

 

And, while a level makes you better at something (1 Skill level say takes you from 13- to 14-), a skill doesn't (defining into being another KS skill means you make your same INT check with it), but it does make everyone else bad at it. 

(Lockout, "creating incompetence")

 

...sorry, I don't have a point or conclusion... just trail'n off...

 

[Steve]

1 hour ago, Opal said:

 And there's already been a "Universal Translator" in at least one version of the game, right?

Of course, but that is a borderline magical Talent based around an INT-roll, so it has a fair chance of failing at a critical moment.

 

I was approaching it as a Skill-based, customizable construct using parts of the system that have been around since at least 4th Edition and tweaking them a bit.

 

For ten points, one could buy Universal Translator for just spoken languages at a -1 Limitation and risk a skill roll failure, or use my suggested build to be able to speak and read seven languages without any roll. Adding in the language chart’s effects, lesser fluency with additional languages is also possible.

[Opal]

Seems like everyone in Star Wars had universal translator... And everyone in Star Trek literally did (IAF: communicator badge thingies).

 

And you could always buy off the Activation Roll...

 

 

... that's another thing, why can't I buy off the roll for my skill? Pay 5 pts instead of 3 and just keep the corners on my cheap dice longer?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

that's another thing, why can't I buy off the roll for my skill?

 

Well that's half the picture.  Few GMs do this, I think, but you don't have to make a roll at all for trivial or common uses of a skill.  You don't have to make an Acrobatics roll to do a summersault.   You don't have to make a Shadowing Roll to follow someone not paying any attention.  The reason you cannot ever buy off your roll is that you might face something so challenging that it requires a roll at a significant penalty.  Any roll above 14- is pretty well automatic, but still leaves room for "wow this lock is really complicated."

[C.R.Ryan]

1 hour ago, Opal said:

Seems like everyone in Star Wars had universal translator... And everyone in Star Trek literally did (IAF: communicator badge thingies).

 

And you could always buy off the Activation Roll...

 

 

... that's another thing, why can't I buy off the roll for my skill? Pay 5 pts instead of 3 and just keep the corners on my cheap dice longer?

Well they have 3PO for most languages other wise the common languages seems to be common (I call the Galactic Trade Tongue, in my game) and Hutt. Wookie and Binary is a bit rarer.

 

I've had a lot of fun with my recent group and the Jawa PC. Jawas have sort of a pigeon trade language they speak to non-Jawas. The occasional translation problem (especially when the Jawa player drops an 18, not on the language skill just him panicking after blowing a skill check badly, he is prone to that in this game) is always hilarious. 

[Opal]

53 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The reason you cannot ever buy off your roll is that you might face something so challenging that it requires a roll at a significant penalty

I think I meant in a more existential sense.

 

Like, skills seem to exist for the roll, not for what you accomplish with them, if that makes any sense?

 

Or, to put the same thing another way, they're disabling.  Lacking a skill or failing a check grinds the action to a halt or selects you out of the current scene.

 

(Sorry, I'm way down the "should skills even exist? Prolly not" rabbit hole at this point. )

 

(Also, wrong place for it.)