Complementary skills incentive

[cyst13]

I really like the idea of using background skills as complementary to other skills as a way of creating skill specialization. Unfortunately, it is more cost effective to just buy up a primary skill than to purchase comp. skills. Short of changing the rules, I've been thinking of a way of incentivizing the purchase of background skills for comp. purposes.

 

One idea I had was to put substantial negative modifiers on skill rolls if the primary skill is not backed-up with an appropriate comp skill. For instance, if a hacker were trying to break into a Cray supercomputer, he would need computer programming as the primary skill and KS: supercomputers as the comp. If he only had computer programming without the KS, he would receive a -5 to his roll. If he were to blow the comp roll, he would also receive the -5.

 

Does this sound like a plausible strategy?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Complementary skills incentive

 

Well, I understand what you're trying to do, but IMHO it feels a bit brute-force; less an incentive to take Skills you can get complementary rolls out of, than a punishment for people with either a narrower or a more generalized skill set. Also, you can't always predict what Skills a player may find complementary for a given task. A computer expert may want to "hot-wire" a computer's hardware (Computer Programming plus Electronics), or decrypt coded information (CP plus Cryptography), or analyze the genetic code of an alien virus (CP plus Genetics).

 

I've found that the best encouragement for people to take a broad range of Skills related to a given area, rather than just buy up the roll for one Skill, is to provide situations in which the other Skills would be useful. In your example, if a supercomputer is experiencing a cascading breakdown causing it to initiate random, destructive actions, and you want to know how long before it goes completely kablooey and the best way to stop it, SS: Supercomputers may be the primary Skill in this case, rather than CP. And as I indicated in my example, you can be creative in what Skills you allow to be Complementary.

 

YMMV, of course.

[cyst13]

Re: Complementary skills incentive

 

Lord Liaden,

 

I don't think what you and I are saying is all that far apart. When I proposed the -5 modifier, rather than attempting to punish players, I was modelling real life professions. For instance, medicine. A general practice doctor has a good deal of knowledge and skills relating to the treatment of common ailments and maladies. When dealing with those, he could use his primary Physician skill without a negative modifier. If he were to see a patient with some rare parasitic condition, though, he would receive a -5 to treat that patient. Otherwise, he'd have to refer the patient to a tropical disease specialist who would have SS:tropical diseases 11-. The comp. science skill would then negate the -5 modifier. Physician skill would still be the primary, because he's still practising medicine, he just needs training in a particular specialty of medicine.

 

Most professions and occupations requiring advanced education have specializations within the larger practice. Think: law, science, business, etc. You are right to point out that this would limit the PCs' ability to be competent in a wide range of skills (you can't just be an all around know-it-all like the Professor on Gilligan's Island). For more realistic campaigns (which I prefer), I think this could provide greater nuance. Also, it does allow skills that have only a broad applicability to still have a chance at success. The GP doctor still has a chance of having come across that particular parasite at some point in his practice.

 

Also, I was thinking that if the PC's comp skill failed, rather than receiving the full -5 modifier automatically, he would receive -1/point failed by, up to max -5. This way, even a failed roll by a specialist would usually be better than a generalist with no training in that area.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Complementary skills incentive

 

Ah, I see the distinction you're making. Negative modifiers would come up if the particular situation required more specialized expertise than just a Computer Programming (or whichever) Skill. Assigning modifiers in that situation is something I do all the time. I had gotten the impression from your remarks that negative modifiers would always apply if the character did not have more specialized related Skills - I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

Your idea for a "graduated modifier" based on how much the Complementary Skill roll was missed doesn't seem unreasonable or terribly abusive. Do keep in mind, though, that a character with Complementary Skills is already getting an additional roll that another with only one applicable Skill doesn't get, so his odds of succeeding are already improved. The odds continue to increase the more Complementary Skills apply to the roll, which is in itself an incentive to broaden ones Skill base.

 

Now that raises another issue about your graduated modifier approach: how would you want to run someone who rolls for more than one Complementary Skill?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Complementary skills incentive

 

I wouldn't let a successful Comp Roll negate a modifier. That's the same as saying a successful roll grants that much of a bonus.

 

I try to encourage the use of Complimentary Skills in my games by telling the player they need to make a [skill] Roll, and that [Other Skill] is Complimentary. I try to do this each and every time a skill roll is made, so that a Comp Roll is a really common thing. Of course, the character won't always have the Comp Skill, but they'll know there is one, and if I ask for the same skill of the same character often enough, guess what they'll be spending XPs on.

 

The other advantage to this is that my players will ask seek out tasks that their skills will compliment each other on. What does the guy with Electronics and Computer Programing work on? Computer repair. What does the guy with SS: Parapsychology and KS: Magic work on? Mystical research. And these I don't even have to point out.

[cyst13]

Re: Complementary skills incentive

 

Lord Liaden,

 

I'm glad you were able to sort through my obtuse prose. I should have been more explicit about the -5 modifier only being applicable in non-general situations. With the graduated modifier on failing a comp. roll, I went with that becuase I don't like the abruptness of saying "You missed your roll by one; -5 penalty." The graduated modifier models some one who comes close to knowing all the relevant info, but not quite. You do raise an important point. If a PC has 2 comp skills and he fails the first roll by one and the second roll by three, what is the modifier? I think rather than adding the negative modifiers, I'd just go with the lowest. In the above example, the PC would receive a -3 to his primary skill. I'm not too worried that the graduated approach makes comp skills overly powerful, because it is only affecting a modifier that I'd already placed upon the primary skill. No failed comp. skill is ever going to raise the primary skill above its starting value.

 

Thanks for your input. You've made me clarify my own thoughts, which is always a good thing.