Skills Theorizing

[Pattern Ghost]

So, I was thinking about de-coupling Skills from Characteristics. Skills would all be costed similarly to General Skills from 4th/5th, 3 points for 11-, +2 points for +1 to the Skill, and Familiarity at 8- for 1 point.

 

Then, what good are Characteristics? Complimentary Rolls. So, a higher Characteristic would result in better odds of boosting the skill with a Complimentary Skill Roll. Moreover, many Skills can logically be governed by more than one Characteristic. If we think of real world Acrobats, we tend to think of: Gymnasts, Circus Acrobats or Parkour. All of these, especially the two former, tend to be very physically strong as well as coordinated. So, Agility may apply most of the time, but there may be instances where Strength might be the better choice, such as maneuvers requiring high grip strength (grabbing a light pole or flagpole to slow a fall, for instance).

 

This type of arrangement would add a new level of granularity for Skills as well as de-emphasize the impact of Characteristics without eliminating it. (Or at least I think it would.)

 

Thoughts? Feelings? Tear it apart, put it back together, theorize!

 

Note: This is just for fun, so have at it. I've not played in a literal dog's age, so I have no current plans to implement any of this.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Pattern Ghost

[Duke Bushido]

Your not the first one to think this way.

 

Frankly, the characteristics-based skills are my favorite thing to point at when people complain that one particular power build makes you effective for fewer points than some,other build (usually it has something to do with adding "free" Strength damage to something or other).

 

But these same people dont seem to,be bothered that for a mere dive points of INT, I can improve twenty skills at one lick.

 

If the trend is to reduce the mechanics to their essence, de-coupling stats from skills is as big a must as is removing damage from everything and creating a new 'inflict damage' mechanic, modified with "Ranged" or "Killing" or what-have you.  Sometimes you can get a few people to discuss that one, with up until you mention that "martial Arts" is SFX for "deliver damage" and a few skill levels.  Some cows are too sacred, I suppose:

 

"I don't want to buy two skill levels and some more damage; I want to buy a _maneuver_ that gives more damage and some skill levels!"

 

I mean, I _get it_; I really do.  I have played with decoupled skills.  It works fine, and enforces a fairness of expenditure to reward and, ( important probably only to me) it tends to reduce the overall number of skills in play-- people tend to focus more on "character-defining" skills instead of "and I will nab a few incidentals because they are cheap and my Characteristic for them is pretty high, so....".  As an added bonus, they are more willing to both step aside when another character has a relevant skill (because there tends to be a little less overlap) amd to role play out things where they dont have a skill on the sheet, but logically have a shot at doing the thing owing to who they are, etc.

 

I don't do it often.  It works fine- even a little better, really, as it drops out overlap and creates an uptick in tense moments of giving it the I'm college try...

 

But it doesnt feel like Champions to a 2e player.   

 

[Pattern Ghost]

30 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

But it doesnt feel like Champions to a 2e player.   

 

 

Oh, I get that. I started basically with 4th Edition, though I'd read 2e some time before that. (Or it may have been 3e, it had Marksman swinging across the cover.) 

 

I was primarily thinking about letting multiple Characteristics govern a Skill, depending on circumstance, as a way of adding granularity to character builds, especially for Heroic level games. This would let two characters with the same skill excel at different aspects of the skill, depending on their stats. Or maybe just be slightly stronger at those aspectss.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm not fond of making characteristics matter less and less

[unclevlad]

Let's start with a motivational question.  WHY decouple the characteristics?  What does this add, what problem gets addressed?  If it's 5E's figured characteristics?  DROP them and re-price as per 6E.  Cuz for me, completely decoupling one's DEX from rolls like Acrobatics or Lockpicking is disruptive to my notion that my character's 'real'...for a given value of real.  It's overly abstracting.

 

If you're going to make the characteristics into some form of complementary skills...why bother with this at all?  You're forcing 2 rolls now, instead of 1, and with the weird interactions with complementary skills.  And, no, it doesn't change the role (and roll) of Characteristics that much.  Presumably, roll the characteristic first...then the skill itself?  Note that, by my reading, if you botch the comp skill, it doesn't matter...it never *hurts* in a case like this, it can only help.  

 

So, let's see here.  Let's go with a 23 Dex...14- for when it'll apply.  

14 to 12...+1

11, 10...+2

9,8...+3

7, 6...+4

 

14-12:  28%

11-10:  25%

9-8:  21%

7-6:  11%

 

So we can expect about +2 to the roll overall.  Still shows a major contribution. 

 

Make it 18, instead of 23:

13-11: 34%, +1 so +.34

10, 9:  24%, +2 so +.48

8,7:  1 in 6;  +3, so +.5

6,5:  7.3%, +4, so +.3 or so.

 

So about +1.62.  

 

It's hardly worth it to go from an 18 to a 23.  Last check, what about 28?

15-13:  21%

12-11:  24%, so +.48

10-9:  24%, +3, so +.72

8-7:  1/6, +4, so +.67

6-5:  7.3%, +5, so .36

 

So now it's about +2.5 as a complementary, on average.

 

OK, so downplaying...but definitely not eliminating.  AND I really dislike making 2 rolls much of the time.

 

How does this apply, also, to background skills?  What about the broader skill mods, like +1 to all INT skills?  Are you driving people to buy *skill levels* rather than stats?  

 

I don't think it's worth the trouble.

 

OTOH, I'm generally fine with the notion of allowing a more flexible interpretation of what characteristic to use.  For 3 points, you get 9-, plus the characteristic bonus that fits what you're trying to do the best.  

 

 

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm not fond of making characteristics matter less and less

 

Fair point. 

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

I don't think it's worth the trouble.

 

 

Yeah, I was thinking one of the drawbacks of this would be the extra rolling. It's probably not worth the extra effort.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Let's start with a motivational question.  WHY decouple the characteristics?

 

The motivation was just to get the stupid idea out of my head, discuss it, have a conversation starter. As to the decoupling, it's something that's been brought up from time to time, with the thought that Characteristics are too strong. I'm honestly fine with the current interaction of skills and Characteristics. But . . . I like to play Devil's Advocate, to ask if there's a way to do it that doesn't totally remove the interaction of the Characteristics and also adds something to the mix. Flexibility seemed like it might be a good trade off. Seeing the math, maybe not? I did the math in my head, from a different angle, and wasn't quite convinced it'd leave enough benefit to Char, and you confirmed that. This looks like it might devalue stats too much.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

OTOH, I'm generally fine with the notion of allowing a more flexible interpretation of what characteristic to use.  For 3 points, you get 9-, plus the characteristic bonus that fits what you're trying to do the best.  

 

 

If I actually did implement any of this, that's what I'd probably do, and just leave the rest alone. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

The problem it "solves" is the same "problem" that the tri-annual discussion of "free" damage for Killing Attack solves:

 

There is an extremely high percentage of people on these boards who, for whatever reason, think that points matter (as you know, I am not one of them.   ) and that being able to exploit the system to find two ways to do something (in this case, raising skill rolls) and one of them is significantly cheaper, well that is just somehow wrong. 

 

Wierdly (but I understand that this seems wierd only to me), it _only_ seems to be a problem for the majority of these folks if it somehow relates to one-on-one combat- free or cheesy defenses; free or dirt cheap damage-dealing-- those are the things that bother them.

 

spending nine points to jack up every single DEX- based or INT-based skill?  Not a problem, apparently.  Deciding to build a chracter with three multiforms so his entire sheet gets an 80 percent discount?   Or a duplicator, so I can get that massive discount _and_ double or quadruple or whatever-the-multiplicative-expression-of-thirty-two-is my actions in a Turn or a Phase?

 

Again, not a problem.   

 

frankly, I suspect that this is because on some level, even the "get what you pay for; pay for what you get" crowd totally understands that points balance really is meaningless, and adding or removing a strength bonus here and there solves the exact same problem that decoupling characteristics from Skills solves.

 

 

[rravenwood]

15 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

OTOH, I'm generally fine with the notion of allowing a more flexible interpretation of what characteristic to use.  For 3 points, you get 9-, plus the characteristic bonus that fits what you're trying to do the best.  

 

 

If I actually did implement any of this, that's what I'd probably do, and just leave the rest alone.

 

This is pretty much what "Skill Rolls Based On Alternate Characteristics" (6E1 55-56) suggests.  If a particular situation calls for a different Characteristic to come into play than the normal one used for the Skill Roll, then do a quick recalc of the character's Skill Roll based on the different Characteristic.  Makes a lot of sense to me.  (Not that I've actually played in multiple dog's ages, but...)

[Duke Bushido]

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm not fond of making characteristics matter less and less

 

If you have a minute, I would very much like to know why you feel this way- I mean, why you feel that that they are important, or what you feel has been lost- I presyme with 6e and it's dice values for characteristics and everything costs the same and there are no figureds any longer.

 

Summation is engine; I am just genuinely curious.

 

 

20 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Yeah, I was thinking one of the drawbacks of this would be the extra rolling.

 

And what so you mean here?  I am likely missing something, but skills hve to be rolled if they are char-based or not; how does removing the characteristic base increase the amount of rolling?

 

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

It's probably not worth the extra effort.

 

 

Extra effort?

 

Again, just curiosity, but it seems,to me that you are loaing some work, not having to figure some sort of base characteristic roll anymore, but instead just write down the skill value for which you paid.

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 Characteristics are too strong.

 

 

 

I have never really felt they were too strong- not even STR, which is everyone's favorite to complain about because of the "free damage" element.  

 

My question is more "what are they for?" (Beyond a number you can compare to someone else's number, which all just ends up being secret pencil marks on that one ruler at summer camp).   And if there is a way to skip right to that purpose, why are we not doing that instead?

 

Look, I will be the first person to tell you that I like to jigger with the system now and again, and that there is possibly a way to do it that really does come closer to some sort of points balance, at least amongst apples to apples, and I dont see why it wouldn't be interesting to shoot for it.  I dont think the strange half-measures 6e took was really a step toward that kind of streamlining; it seems,more to have complicated things with infinite splittings in some places and odd amalgamation in others without any real drive to isolate the key elements of the mechanics.  Change for change's sake, so to speak, or straying from an initial vision.

20 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

. This looks like it might devalue stats too much.

 

Now that's thrice.  6e "devalued" them by removing the formulae for figuring the secondary characteristics and removing enough bits and pieces that they can all be priced the same.  Christopher above worries that splitting skills away from characteristics will devalue them, and now you suggest the same.

 

The question this immediately presents, at least to me, is "what is the value of Characteristics?"  Are they just a holdover from the earliest days of dice for action on a field of imagination and graph paper?  Do we keep them around just for the "mine's bigger than yours" aspect?

 

If they have no actual value, why are wasting valuable points on them?

 

Of course, we have to look at each stat individually.  For example, what do we get from Stength (arguably the most argued-about of the characteristics).  We get lifting /carrying capacity and we get damage.  If we split damage out and move it to the all-essential "inflict damage" ability, then the STR characteristic can literally be replaced by a listed lifting capacity.

 

Some may still have value- those against which you might roll for raw ability when no skill is available, but one isn't often asked to make a Strength roll.

 

Others we know will stay because they are essentially damage indicators:  STUN, BODY--  Recovery is the actual value plugged into its own mechanic, so it will stay.

 

Etc.

 

 

 

 

Okay.

 

That's about the biggest push I can give.  If it doesnt get discussed now, I dont know what to tell you.

 

 

 

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

7 hours ago, rravenwood said:

This is pretty much what "Skill Rolls Based On Alternate Characteristics" (6E1 55-56) suggests. 

 

Nice.  I'm not as familiar with 6th, thanks.

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

And what so you mean here?  I am likely missing something, but skills hve to be rolled if they are char-based or not; how does removing the characteristic base increase the amount of rolling?

 

The complimentary roll being added in.

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I have never really felt they were too strong- not even STR, which is everyone's favorite to complain about because of the "free damage" element.  

 

Me either. 😃 This whole thing is just a thought experiment.

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

That's about the biggest push I can give.  If it doesnt get discussed now, I dont know what to tell you.

 

LOL, thanks for your support. I don't really care if it gets discussed, just figured I'd toss it out there and see what folks think. It's more about just posting on the actual gaming side of the board more for me. I haven't played in a long time, and tend to hang out more in the NGD these days. I'm more of an RPG Reader than RPG Player these days.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Pattern Ghost

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Summation is engine; I am just genuinely curious.

 

With 6th edition removing figured characteristics, making Body a damage stat with no roll, and decoupling CV from DEX and EGO, Characteristics have already taken a pretty big hit in terms of function in the game.  Stripping them away from skills would make primary stats nearly valueless other than STR.  Deemphasizing characteristics even further is to me a very bad direction to go.  Why even bother buying any at that point?  You can get levels and lightning reflexes for cheaper than stats.

[unclevlad]

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

With 6th edition removing figured characteristics, making Body a damage stat with no roll, and decoupling CV from DEX and EGO, Characteristics have already taken a pretty big hit in terms of function in the game.  Stripping them away from skills would make primary stats nearly valueless other than STR.  Deemphasizing characteristics even further is to me a very bad direction to go.  Why even bother buying any at that point?  You can get levels and lightning reflexes for cheaper than stats.

 

Yeah...I was gonna mildly disagree, but....

 

--DEX:  initiative.  Fine, buy lightning reflexes.

--PRE:  this'll be a matter of style, I suppose.  I've never been a big PRE attack user.  OTOH, I do like several of the PRE skills.

--INT:  PER...fine, buy a bit more Enhanced PER.

 

Those are the only characteristics associated with a listed skill.  Yeah, maybe there's exceptional cases where STR or EGO might be used, but I don't see that making any difference.  

 

So they're relegated to dump stats.  I agree with CRT.  No thanks.  

 

 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

With 6th edition removing figured characteristics, making Body a damage stat with no roll, and decoupling CV from DEX and EGO, Characteristics have already taken a pretty big hit in terms of function in the game.  Stripping them away from skills would make primary stats nearly valueless other than STR.  Deemphasizing characteristics even further is to me a very bad direction to go.  Why even bother buying any at that point?  You can get levels and lightning reflexes for cheaper than stats.

 

 

Thanks, Christopher.  I _thought_ that might be what you meant, but I wasnt certain.

 

Still- for the sake of conversation as opposed to any actual disagreement- let's take a look at BODY.   There has, so far as I can remember, any published material from any edition, to include the adventure modules, that mentioned a BODY roll.  We have seen DEX, INT, EGO, CON--  but never a BODY roll.

 

So not having one now is no change at all.  Body's primary function has always been tracking damage.  It had secondary functions with figured characteristics, but I dont think anyone ever bought large amounts of BODY to up their bonuses on those figureds.  Sure, no one would turn them down, but most every build I have ever been submitted had BODY bought up to be able to soak more damage before being in trouble. 

 

Now, I still play 2e, so clearly I wasnt too bothered by figureds, but if the only purpose of a characteristic is as a variable to calculate some other characteristic, then why not just go build that other characteristic instead?  Even prior to sixth edition, half of its purpose was as a variable to plug into formulae during char gen.  The rest was tracking points until dead. 

 

Realistically, once you were done with char gen, BODY didnt do much work as a variable, either, except on the odd occasion that you spent a couple of XP on it and dusted off the math for a minute or two.  With that in mind, calling its use to figuring secondary characteristics "half of its value" may have been excessively generous.  Certainly cutting the price in half seems fair compensation for removing a bit of math.

 

I wanted to,adress a couple more, but it's tomorrow over here all ready, and I should probably _try_ to get three hours of sleep before work.

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

but I dont think anyone ever bought large amounts of BODY to up their bonuses on those figureds. 

 

I always liked round numbers, so that means a STUN ending in 5 or 0. So, I tend to buy up BODY to make the figured come up as something aesthetically pleasing, if I have the points. I could just round up by buying STUN directly, but usually don't. I also don't tend to split hairs on optimizing builds to the point I need to scrounge up the "wasted" points on the extra BODY.

[LoneWolf]

Increasing the cost of skills which this does is not going to improve the game.  In fact, it is likely to do the opposite.  Too many players don’t even bother with skills even though they are fairly cheap. Making them cost more is just going make players even less willing to purchase skills. 

 

Currently most scientist characters use the option to make their science skills INT based to get decent rolls when they purchase multiple sciences.  Knowledge based characters do the same thing.  By combining this with skill enhancers you can get a decent number of relevant skills for fairly cheap.

 

Under the current rules I can spend 41 points for a 23 INT, and a 14 or less on the following skills computer programing, inventor, security systems, electronic and mechanics, plus the skill enhancer scientist and 5 sciences skills all on 14 or less.  Under the proposed rule you have to spend 48 points to get those skills and that does not include the cost of raising the characters INT.  Once you factor in the INT the cost jumps up to 61 points.  That does not even factor in perception.  This is a very basic scientist build what is the justification for the extra cost?      

 

A Ninja or other martial arts concept is going to get equally hard.  All this system does is to penalize certain concepts.  This is not just a solution in search of a problem.  This is solution that creates a problem.   

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

With 6th edition removing figured characteristics, making Body a damage stat with no roll, and decoupling CV from DEX and EGO, Characteristics have already taken a pretty big hit in terms of function in the game.  Stripping them away from skills would make primary stats nearly valueless other than STR.  Deemphasizing characteristics even further is to me a very bad direction to go.  Why even bother buying any at that point?  You can get levels and lightning reflexes for cheaper than stats.

 

I think what 6e really did was remove the bargain purchase aspect of DEX, CON and (to a lesser extent) STR and EGO by making it practical (that is, not cost-prohibitive) to buy Figureds instead.  The designer was then left with the choice of repricing them (and maybe revising the formulas) to retain Figured Char at an equitable price, and revising the No Figured limitation to go with it, or acknowledging that there was no great benefit in having two different ways to buy Figureds. He chose the latter.

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Yeah...I was gonna mildly disagree, but....

 

--DEX:  initiative.  Fine, buy lightning reflexes.

--PRE:  this'll be a matter of style, I suppose.  I've never been a big PRE attack user.  OTOH, I do like several of the PRE skills.

--INT:  PER...fine, buy a bit more Enhanced PER.

 

Those are the only characteristics associated with a listed skill.  Yeah, maybe there's exceptional cases where STR or EGO might be used, but I don't see that making any difference.  

 

So they're relegated to dump stats.  I agree with CRT.  No thanks. 

 

What 6e did not do was really step back and ask what other Char do, and whether they were reasonably priced.  To me, DEX is not worth double INT and PRE.  Initially, I considered DEX overpriced, but I've come to see INT and PRE as underpriced.  Each of these does two things - drive many skills and drive initiative/PER/PRE attacks.  The pricing on the component parts exceeds the price of the characteristics, especially as skill levels enhance only one roll at a time.  Pricing them at 2 each, setting a limitation on "only to boost rolls" and further limitations to either focus those rolls or be "only one at a time", and limitations to only grant the secondary effect, would be preferable, to me, to removing the link from skills. 

 

A shift to complimentary rolls would just further disguise the connection, change the relative value of CHAR to Levels, slow resolution down in-game and increase volatility of skills as two good, or two bad, rolls would create outcomes further from the average.  Whether the last is a plus or a minus depends on how (un)predictable one wishes success with a skill to be.

 

EGO is the most challenging to price, as its value depends a lot on how common mental attacks/effects are in the game.  Its rolls are less common.  I would stick to its 1 point pricing, with the same "for rolls" limitations, but make it the core stat to resist PRE attacks (removing this from PRE) as well as mental attacks.  Low EGO, high PRE is a slick con man who is still easily shaken himself.  High EGO, low PRE is basically unshakeable, but not a charmer, orator or impressive in their own right - calm, quiet and steady.

 

12 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

Increasing the cost of skills which this does is not going to improve the game.  In fact, it is likely to do the opposite.  Too many players don’t even bother with skills even though they are fairly cheap. Making them cost more is just going make players even less willing to purchase skills. 

 

Currently most scientist characters use the option to make their science skills INT based to get decent rolls when they purchase multiple sciences.  Knowledge based characters do the same thing.  By combining this with skill enhancers you can get a decent number of relevant skills for fairly cheap.

 

Under the current rules I can spend 41 points for a 23 INT, and a 14 or less on the following skills computer programing, inventor, security systems, electronic and mechanics, plus the skill enhancer scientist and 5 sciences skills all on 14 or less.  Under the proposed rule you have to spend 48 points to get those skills and that does not include the cost of raising the characters INT.  Once you factor in the INT the cost jumps up to 61 points.  That does not even factor in perception.  This is a very basic scientist build what is the justification for the extra cost?      

 

A Ninja or other martial arts concept is going to get equally hard.  All this system does is to penalize certain concepts.  This is not just a solution in search of a problem.  This is solution that creates a problem.   

 

Is the issue the characteristics or the price of skills relative to their utility?  How often do those INT-based skills come up in play to justify spending 18 points (over and above the cost of INT driving them)?  If they are only on the sheet to sell the "He is a genius scientist" background of the character, but are rarely or never relevant in-game, then they should not cost 41 points.  No one should have to spend 30 or 40+ points to have a specific background that rarely or never has any beneficial game effect.  Day labourer and fry cook should not be the background of choice because they permit you to spend your points effectively instead of burning huge points on a back story.

[Duke Bushido]

There is also skill breadth to consider.  Without the driver of Characteristics, players and GMs tend to move to the broader skills found in the source materials:

 

Radiation Scientist, Geologist, that kind of thing- where "geologist" might range to all strata or even some fossil knowledge or an educated idea about where and how to drill for oil.

 

Though to be honest, I have always done an in-one-ear-out-the-other thing on the argument about whether or not skills are cheap or expensive, simply because the lack of specified breadth of a skill makes that argument largely unsustainable.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I think what 6e really did was remove the bargain purchase aspect of DEX, CON and (to a lesser extent) STR and EGO by making it practical (that is, not cost-prohibitive) to buy Figureds instead.

 

That was the intention and reason behind the change.  But whatever the reason was, it deemphasized primary stats.  I would prefer not to do any more of that.  I mean 6th edition in general reduced the significance of characteristics in the game by making many of them cost less than they ought, in my opinion.  I agree very much that the cost of stats wasn't looked at closely enough.  REC and END both cost too little.  I agree that INT and EGO probably should cost a bit more, but I can see why DEX is expensive: it gives many combat-useful rolls and combat rank.  But overall, a missed opportunity to fix the costs.

 

Quote

There has, so far as I can remember, any published material from any edition, to include the adventure modules, that mentioned a BODY roll.

 

I used to use it every so often in my games for things like reacting to poison etc.  Constitution is how well you absorb diseases, being stunned, etc.  Body handles how well your body handles lethal system shock.  But not any longer.  I've never liked the "well I never use it in my campaign so let's delete it" argument; that's how we lost Comeliness.  Even when Bob Greenwade wrote up a great article on how to use Comeliness and its roll in games, that was ignored because people who made the decision never used Comeliness in their game.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That was the intention and reason behind the change.  But whatever the reason was, it deemphasized primary stats.  I would prefer not to do any more of that.  I mean 6th edition in general reduced the significance of characteristics in the game by making many of them cost less than they ought, in my opinion.  I agree very much that the cost of stats wasn't looked at closely enough.  REC and END both cost too little.  I agree that INT and EGO probably should cost a bit more, but I can see why DEX is expensive: it gives many combat-useful rolls and combat rank.  But overall, a missed opportunity to fix the costs.

 

I think many costs were fixed.  Reducing the costs of END, STUN and REC was the right answer - no one bought them up at those prices.  It just made STR and CON  even more must-have bargain purchases.  I would price INT, PRE and DEX the same, and revamp skill levels, PER, PRE Attacks and Lightning Reflexes so that you could buy +1 to all rolls based on that stat, plus +1 PER rolls/+1d6 PRE attack/+5 Initiative for all purposes for the same 10 points as +1 to the characteristic.  I would seriously consider making all of these abilities limited CHAR rather than separate abilities.

 

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I used to use it every so often in my games for things like reacting to poison etc.  Constitution is how well you absorb diseases, being stunned, etc.  Body handles how well your body handles lethal system shock.  But not any longer.  I've never liked the "well I never use it in my campaign so let's delete it" argument; that's how we lost Comeliness.  Even when Bob Greenwade wrote up a great article on how to use Comeliness and its roll in games, that was ignored because people who made the decision never used Comeliness in their game.

 

COM was not eliminated because "Steve didn't use it in his games".  It was eliminated because, after reviewing the massive discussion on the Boards on how it might be used, every single use anyone put forward was a limited enhancement of another characteristic.  The decision was that every char should have a unique purpose and stand alone.  COM did not, so it was eliminated.  The "hey, good-lookin'/so butt-ugly" element became Stunning Appearance as all it ever did was modify PRE attacks and/or PRE skill rolls.

 

BOD will not be eliminated - it is the damage counter to death (and other uses like Transform).  CON will not be eliminated - it is the measure for being STUNned.  What did we ever see suggested as a mechanic for COM that no other characteristic did?

Edited October 28, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Duke Bushido]

What value do you percieve to exist in the characteristics?  If any one particular characteristic could be replaced by its own mechanic or have various "additional bits" pulled out of it to leave only a core unique thing (beating the strength example again, if we could put "deal damage" in its own category and leave a "lift / carry" value instead of a Strength characteristic, what is it that you feel we have lost?

 

Now before anyone thinks I am nitpicking anyone else, let us all remember that in spite of owning everything, I still play 2e.  Clearly, I am not a huge advocate for change to begin with.     I am curious, though, about what other people find to be good / bad regarding any potential changes, or changes that have already happened.

 

I am also a bit curious what resistance is based on "actual bad idea" or "that has emotional importance to me."  As I admitted above, I found the de-coupling from Skills to be something of an improvement, but I still don't do it in general because "it didnt feel like Champions" to me.  Obviously, I understand emotional preference

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd say I prefer leaving limited characteristics to making each bit a separate mechanic largely due to the tradition of having characteristics in RPGs in general, and the easier familiarity with them.

 

We could break "do damage" and have ranged and HTH normal damage.  But should we then break out knockback and separate STUN and BOD damage?  They are all "their own thing" aren't they?

 

On the skills front, I think "Hero as game design" could be better defined.  In Supers, we could likely get by with a single skill a la Detective Work.  A police procedural game might focus more on that aspect, mandating more granular skills.  Lawyer and Medical Doctor are likely enough for Supers where a courtroom or hospital drama, respectively, would need a finer breakdown.  Ditto Science.

 

I recall a very "user-designed" game where "Lawyer" or "Scientist" would give you an unmodified roll on all relevant challenges, unless someone else had a more specific skill like Business Law or Biologist.  The general skill would take a penalty when those specifics arose.  But then we might see an "International Tax" or "Molecular Biology" skill.  Now the middle skill takes a penalty and the generalist takes an even bigger penalty.

 

In the source material, in a Marvel movie, Stephen Strange knows all branches of medicine and Daredevil is well-versed in all aspects of the law.  In St. Elsewhere or Law & Order, they would be more specialized as every character would have some skill in these areas, and need to be differentiated.

[LoneWolf]

The 41 points included the cost of raising the INT to 23.   Some of those skills are usually very useful in most campaigns.  Computer Programing is probably one of the most used non-combat skills in the game and in most modern campaigns gets you a lot of information.   Security System is another skill that has a lot of uses.  Electronics is often a complementary skill so is also well worth the points.  Inventor and mechanics are more situational but still come up enough that they are handy.  The background skill under the current rules only cost 13 points including the skill enhancer.  Under the proposed rules they cost 23 points.    

 

In all honesty most player don’t know bother utilizing skills that well.   When I write up a scientist character with lots of science skills, I find way to utilize those.  
 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'd say I prefer leaving limited characteristics to making each bit a separate mechanic largely due to the tradition of having characteristics in RPGs in general, and the easier familiarity with them.

 

I am not opposed to charavteristics remaining.  Anything about removing them is, dor me at least, thought exercise.

 

Here's one I have toyed with ona and off for years, but not too seriosly-  in depth, but mostly for my own amusement.  I have never posted it before, but it might be good for this discussion.  I first encountered the "strength is underpriced" argument-- what?  Twenty years ago?  When was red October?  Anyway, that's where I first encountered it.  I disagreed vehemently, of course (I have an affection for Bricks, and while they represent somwthing viscerally satisfying, realistically,it takes,one heck of a brick to go toe-to-toe with any blaster or mentalist, and most speedsters.  They are literally targets with muscles.

 

At any rate, I thought long and hard on Strength, and on what it meant in game terms, what it provided, etc.

 

The biggest thing I realizes is "Windmills do not work this way!"  That is to say that even heavily-muscled people of identical weight (and therefore reasonably similar muscle mass) cannot all apply themselves equally in the same regard.  Some will be brutal powerlifters; some will be acrobats and gymnasts.  Some will,be runners, or leapers, or wrestlers, while others will be ironworkers and longshoremen.

 

This is when I first hit upon the idea of simply not buying Strength at all.  Instead, by the individual components of Strength.  The Strength chart would have to be broadened.  There would be new columns for everything granted by Strength.  

 

Column 1 would be a suggested STR level- the stuff we are used to writing on the character sheet.  This is a reference number now.  Every time one buys an element of STR, one notes the appropriate STR value for that level of the attribute.

 

Column 2 is, of course, the character's lift capacity.  Column 3, as you might expect, was punch damage.  This representes the maximum dice that a character could deliver with a his fiercest blow short of using any sort of maneuver that adds damage.

 

  Column 4 was leaping (muscle-powered, as opposed to the character's right to buy the Leaping Power), which in the older editions was derived from STR.  This Column would be arranges on the assumption that the character weight 100 cocaine bricks, of course.  Powers that altered his mass would increase or reduce his abikity as they were in use.

 

Column 5 was Throwing Distance for an item that could be lifted by an STR-0 character.  Again, this was for muscle-powered throwing based on his STR, and not some,"super-throwing" ability.

 

Each time a facet was selected, the 

 

creator would note the STR suggested rating for that facet, and when he was done, he would record them, and would average the rating to determine his numerical Strength rating, or Characteristic.

 

This one-hundred percent solved "strength is underpriced" because the character was paying for each facet of his strength and not getting anything 'for free.'  It also left a numerical Strength characteristic that players could ue to compare themselves to each other amd the game world (of course I'm strong!  I have a Strength 60!) As well as leave a number to be plugged into the formulw for figured stats, even though STR itself had now sort of become one.

 

I wondered about how much strength was worth (now having spent the points to see what each component of it cost when bought separately), and so I waffled a bit on not allowing it to formulaically contribute to other figured stats.

 

That lead me to realizing I had priced all the elements of STR based on a powers-type build, and that it might be possible (or necessary) to reprise the other Characteristics the same way.  If I recall, only figured Characteristics were really buildable as power structures (and even then not all of them), and only PD and ED worked out the same either way. (If one bought Armor and removed the inherent "Resistant" advantage, it broke down to close enough to 1 for 1 to let it slide.)

 

As I said, I dabbled with it off and on, because I enjoyed it, but I had no long-term plans to make sweeping changes to the rules, even for my own games; it was just a fun diversion now and again.

 

It never occurred to me to divorce CV and Speed or MCV and EGO, but if it had, for this experiment, I would have done it in an instant and not looked back, simply because the goal here was to find the absolute most basic building blocks of each stat.

 

There is more I could share, but I have been awake since 3:45 yesterday morning, and things are still conspiring to keep me away from the bed.  Accordingly, my eyes are really straining right here, so I am going to close this post for now, anyway, and leave you with the thought that if you havent actually broken down STR into every one of its components and priced them individually, you really have _no clue_ just what an incredible bargain it was!  However, it isnt really the only characteristic that was a sweet deal, either.

 

Hugh had a lot of points I wanted to address, but I am going to have to wait, I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

[IndianaJoe3]

On 10/28/2023 at 3:40 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

On the skills front, I think "Hero as game design" could be better defined.  In Supers, we could likely get by with a single skill a la Detective Work.  A police procedural game might focus more on that aspect, mandating more granular skills.  Lawyer and Medical Doctor are likely enough for Supers where a courtroom or hospital drama, respectively, would need a finer breakdown.  Ditto Science.

 

I've played around with the idea of this as a toggle, depending on setting. In a supers game (as you suggest), there would probably be only one character (or a minority of group members) taking Criminology or Forensic Medicine and there's really no need to break it down further. If we are playing Police Procedural Hero, all the characters will have it, so we need to flip the toggle. Now, using the main skill requires subskills (Knowledge Skills related to the main skill) to use it effectively. Using the main skill without at least a Familiarity in the relevant subskill would have a -3 penalty because they don't have the more specialized knowledge needed to effectively apply the main skill. Higher levels in the subskill would allow a complementary roll, as usual.

 

Example: Detectives Willams and Hunter analyzing data from a crime scene trying determine which direction a gunshot came from.  Both have Criminology, but only Hunter has Ballistic Analysis. Detective Williams will take a -3 to his Criminology roll.

[LoneWolf]

You can use the rules for complementary skills to achieve a same result.  Instead of imposing penalties for those without the background skills impose a straight penalty to the rolls.   Those with the complementary skills will have gain a bonus to the roll from the background skill.   

 

There is also no reason skill rolls in the Hero System have to be completely binary.  In some cases, making the skill roll by more than the required amount should give a better result.   Other than in skill vs skill contests how much the character makes their roll, rarely seems to be factored in.    A better way would be to give a more favorable result for achieving more than you needed, Using the example of criminology above making the roll will get that the character was killed with a high powered rifle, but making it by 3 gets the fact  the shooter was firing from the north east, making it by 5 might gain all the above plus the fact the sniper probably fired from a window in the next building.  This does require a lot more work from the GM but makes the game better.