Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

[arcady]

Imagine you're an everyday joe, and you've got a car that needs minor repair. Maybe you've got to change out a part, rebuilt a door, or whatever. It's old enough to not be computerized - it's all mechanical.

 

Mechanics is -NOT- an everyman skill.

 

We all know that anyone could in theory fix that car if they stumble through it in the right manner, perhaps following a manual.

 

Your chances might not be good at getting it right, it might take months for a job that a little training would cause to take a single afternoon... but it is possible.

 

Now imagine you're that same average Joe, and you need to get the trust of the guys in your hood - you need to win them over to your side. Anyone can do this, even if some can do it with regularity and others stumble through it.

 

Now imagine you're 'Missy' from uptown, with your poodle, your pink car, and so on... you're everywoman skill list does not have survival. You and Ken go hiking and get lost.

 

Should there be a 100% chance that you will die?

 

 

We can go on with theoreticals.

 

It seems to me that every skill should have some remote chance of success... though with some that chance might be lower than even a 3-...

 

At least, if you can line up your circumstances right, isn't nearly anything possible, if only remotely so?

 

Yet I'm not finding this in Hero...

 

Of course, while I've run the system since 1984, I skipped out around 2000 and only in the last week did I pull my copy of 5E off the shelf and start looking inside...

 

Have I missed something, or have I found something that at least, someone who agreed with my premise would find is missing?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

Assuming nobody is searching for Missy and that she doesn't accidentally stumble upon other people, she'll die. That's the breaks. She should have spent her time learning survival instead of pet grooming.

 

A manual is, at best, a Familiarity with a given skill. Knowing how to light a fire by reading a Boy Scout Handbook is better than nothing, but it's still no guarantee of survival.

[Wanderer]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

In addition to the canon Everyman Skill list, I think that also Seduction should be Everyman for each list, in any age and setting (see relevant thread). Moreover, in modern settings, Computer Programming should be Everyman for anyone born past, say, 1965, or at the very least 1980. Pretty much anyone who has been a teen or twentysomething past the mid-late '80s and has been raised in decent socio-economic conditions has very basic Computer Operation (NOT Programming) compentency. For futuristic settings, I'd also make basic science skills (Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Physics) Everyman.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

This issue is covered to some extent in the rules FAQ, and hence might well find its way into 5E Revised:

Q: If a character wants to attempt an action for which he lacks the Skill (such as bribing a guard when the character doesn’t have the Bribery Skill), how should the GM handle it?

 

A: That’s up to each individual GM. At best, the character should get a very low roll (say, 6-), since anything more unfairly penalizes characters who buy Familiarities. Another possibility would be to use the relevant Characteristic Roll at a significant penalty (say, -8 or more).

 

Besides the advice given above, I think it's mosly a case of the GM applying common sense.

 

For repairing a car, I'd use the rule above, perhaps allowing the character an extra time bonus as per the usual skill rules. After all, it's fairly realistic that a person withough Mechanics might be able to fix a car but it is going to take them a lot longer than somebody with the skill would take.

 

For Survival, note that while FREd does not list it as an everyman skill, it also does not say that failure with Survival automatically results in death, only that repeated failures could result in death. Again, the GM has the opportunity to apply some common sense. If Missy somehow manages to survive for a few days through luck or good roleplaying, that's probably worth an experience point or two from all but the most stingy of GMs, which she can then spend on Survival since she's undeniably gaining first-hand experience of the skill. Thus if Missy lucks out and manages to keep herself alive, she'll eventually learn Survival, gradually getting better at it.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

RE: Computer Programming as Everyman. I disagree. Perhaps Systems Operation: Computer should be -- I have it listed as Everyman for science fiction campaigns, for example.

 

And these are separate skills; I once had to show a $400 an hour programming consultant how to bring up the Task Manager with a mouse...

[tesuji]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I think you are looking at the everyperson skill list needing to be broader, rather than a presumption of giving every skill a minor chance of success.

 

Come up with a more comprehensive list for the setting, making it as broad as you see fit, and you probably solve the problem.

 

In a modern world, with all the subjects glossed on briefly in high school, tv and movies, i can easily see a very long list of everyperson skills,

[nexus]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

Generally, I role play those situations. Missing a Survival roll doesn't mean instant death, just hard ship. The character is hungry, may suffer an animal attack, eat something poisonous, etc. The player can rp the situation a bit to mitigate these things. Everyone knows a bit of trivia or can get lucky. Lack of the skill makes its harder because your PC only knows what the player knows, or less. Having the skill allows for the situation to be either summed up or the player to make rolls to get "hints" on how to handle it with the degree of success measuring the level of hint.

 

Most people know to operate computers as in "Turn them on and click on user friendly interfaces" How many people can really write and debug code or fix any but the most simple computer problems? Even a Famaliarity gives you a chance to do that.

[Wanderer]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

Most people know to operate computers as in "Turn them on and click on user friendly interfaces" How many people can really write and debug code or fix any but the most simple computer problems? Even a Famaliarity gives you a chance to do that.

 

I recognize the problem: computer *programming* is far from being a widespread skill, yet varying degrees of computer operation is. Maybe Computer Programming Familiarity should be redefined to be for operation only. On that basis, it might be a valid modern Everyman skill.

 

OTOH, for Stellar Hero or Galactic Champions, the full version of the skill should be Everyman, along with basic Science skills (Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Physics), Electronic, and Mechanic. Maybe also Navigation: Air, Space. Just doing a reasonable assumption on which skills basic school training is going to give in the future millennium.

[Blue]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I think so long as you designate a few skills as logically "out of reach" for every man, AND you start your campaign with everyone on that same footing, you can do the everyman thing.

 

I suggested making every skill and "everyman skill" in my current campaign and a few people who actually bought skills pointed out that it wasn't fair to them (and they're right!).

 

I think Everyman versions of skills could allow you to figure out basic things. Everyman Computer Programming could get you to find the off switch on the alien space ship, but it couldn't allow you to program the ship to fly in reverse when fired up. Just rolls for things that you think a normal person has a chance of figureing out within reason.

[Guest Soulcatcher]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

You could also have flexibility by allowing substitutions on the everyman skills, appropriate to the character background.

[StGrimblefig]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I recognize the problem: computer *programming* is far from being a widespread skill' date=' yet varying degrees of computer operation is. Maybe Computer Programming Familiarity should be redefined to be for operation only. On that basis, it might be a valid modern Everyman skill.[/quote']

There is already a skill, called Systems Operation (SysOp), that covers this.

 

Now, SysOp is defined very broadly, and can cover anything from playing Tetris on a personal computer to operating a complex, multiband radar system on a naval ship. There is, however, a discussion in the gamemastering chapter that uses system operation as an example of how to expand a broadly defined skill into smaller, specific "subskills" (sorry, I do not have my FREd handy to give a page reference).

 

With that in mind, It might make sense in certain games to expand SysOp as suggested and have the SysOp subskill for Personal Computers be an everyman skill. That would allow everyone to be able to turn on the computer and execute easily-accessible software (i.e. anything defined as a trivial or easy skill use). More complex operations of the system would incur skill roll modifiers that would make the "everyman" version of the skill difficult to succeed.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I think this falls into the same area I hear with GURPS, pretty soon you hear the critics asking "do I have to take Change a light bulb skill"?

 

The way I see everyman skills and familiarities is that they represent the ability to do a task that has some complexity to it, not something so basic that the GM would not require a roll if you had the skill. Something minor I'd probably make the character make a roll against a characteristic but if they had the skill it would just be done, I'd never make a character with Mechanic rll to perform an oil change but I would make a character without the skill roll against Int or something.

 

So for example Mechnics, a character with this familiarity has some very basic training, High school auto shop or perhaps they helped a buddy do a tune up and do the brakes, the particular skills they learned just happen to be what the problem was now (they made their roll) or they've never seen the required task done (they failed their roll). The idea that a person can go out and fumble through a repair but it takes a long time is easy, they got a book, they played with the car for 2 months, guess what thats training, they just got a point and bought familiarity with mechanics.

 

Survival works the same way, if Missy and her poodle get lost in the city park, sure they may survive by finding a dumpster, drinking duck pond water and being found before they starve, but if they are lost in the mountains where it gets to 30 degrees at night and mountain lions roam the forest, they will die, happens quite freqently actually. City people learn some interesting survival techniques, when I worked for the Forest Service I remember they found a guy who got lost, somebody told him that bears can't run down hilll, so he ran downhill, all day, they found this poor guy, half dead, exhausted, beaten and bloody from crashing through tree branches, missing a shoe and this was the same day he got lost, another two or three and he would have been dead. BTW there was n bear but he thought they were sneaky and wasn't taking chances. Definately no everyman skill for that guy.

 

A lot of this comes from the characters, I could see allowing a "country kid" getting survival as an everyman skill but why, the player should have bought the familiarity if he felt its something the background would give him. I do agree with the idea that maybe everyman skills should be a pool and let the players pick a few, that way the kid who grew up on a ranch and was an eagle scout will have different everyman skills from the city kid who spent his whole childhood at science camp.

 

Anyone who thinks computer use is an everyman skill obviously doesn't work with some of the computer illiterates I do, or maybe I don't work with everyman's (quite possible)

[Short Shot]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I'm in the middle on this one. I've done a partial rebuild of a truck engine working from a Chilton manual with no other training in mechanics. I haven't had any wilderness survival training, formally, but I've have a friend who was training to be an Airforce Seach and Evasion Instructor and we've chatted casually about some of his training, and, oh, I've read all the Louis L'Amour books that came out before he died. I've also read Tracker, the biography of Tom Brown, who is considered to be one of the best trackers in the country. I might not be comfortable while lost in the woods, but if the weather was decent I think I could make a good showing of getting out in one peice.

 

On the other hand, I've had to show people how to turn off a computer by holding down the power button for 10 seconds, and these people have been working with computers in a software development company for 10 years.

 

Possibly an influencing question to ask is the skill something that the average person might have been exposed to in their daily lives to some extent, and if an intellegent person extrapolating from some general information would be able to figure at least some of it out.

 

Anyone remember the series "Scarcrow and Mrs. King"? I remember one scene where she did a great job of combat driving, and when asked where she learned it she said something like "Well, when you have a son who needs to be at soccor practice and a daughter who needs to get to a swim meet, and you still have go grociery shopping, you learn some tricks".

[lazarus]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

There's a few things I would do as GM.

 

I'd have different "career paths" possibly, as package deals or something, with some skill familiarities built-in.

 

I'd also allow rolls sometimes where a 3 is necessary to succeed. And at that, it wouldn't be a good success.

 

Laz just figured out how he'd run rolls where the character has no skill

[Ternaugh]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

 

On the other hand, I've had to show people how to turn off a computer by holding down the power button for 10 seconds, and these people have been working with computers in a software development company for 10 years.

 

State-of-the-art design of pcs 10 years ago had actual power switches on computers (flip the switch, break a circuit, no power to machine). That front button isn't actually a power button. It's actually a software-controlled button that commands most computers to power to/from a low-power state (read: unless your computer is unplugged, it is on, to some degree). Holding the button in for 10 seconds is actually issuing a command to power down immediately. This is actually a good example of how tech skills can become dated in a short period of time.

 

Now, Macintosh, 10 years ago, had that funny button appear on the keyboard that controlled the power state...which confused the crap out of many a pc user.

 

JoeG

[nexus]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I'm in the middle on this one. I've done a partial rebuild of a truck engine working from a Chilton manual with no other training in mechanics. I haven't had any wilderness survival training, formally, but I've have a friend who was training to be an Airforce Seach and Evasion Instructor and we've chatted casually about some of his training, and, oh, I've read all the Louis L'Amour books that came out before he died. I've also read Tracker, the biography of Tom Brown, who is considered to be one of the best trackers in the country. I might not be comfortable while lost in the woods, but if the weather was decent I think I could make a good showing of getting out in one peice.

 

On the other hand, I've had to show people how to turn off a computer by holding down the power button for 10 seconds, and these people have been working with computers in a software development company for 10 years.

 

Possibly an influencing question to ask is the skill something that the average person might have been exposed to in their daily lives to some extent, and if an intellegent person extrapolating from some general information would be able to figure at least some of it out.

 

Anyone remember the series "Scarcrow and Mrs. King"? I remember one scene where she did a great job of combat driving, and when asked where she learned it she said something like "Well, when you have a son who needs to be at soccor practice and a daughter who needs to get to a swim meet, and you still have go grociery shopping, you learn some tricks".

 

Interestingly enough in the Star Hero setting Computer Programming is actually a rarer skill. Computers are so user friendly and well programed you don't need it at all. "Hello computer, I'd like to research this and that." "Working...." It would be like having "Operate Toaster skill"

 

As for the above I would say, as a character, you would have at least familarties with the skills you mentioned. And Hero is cinematic. There's nothing to stop a character in a need of it from spending one character point to get a Famailarity and making up a semi (or less) plausible reason for it in the middle of the adventure, basically sayings "I always could do it I just never had to before." Or just having a "natural talent" for the skill.

[Magmarock]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I think its a good idea for a GM to create a list of everyman skills that is relevant to the genre. (Since my group's game is present day, we use the list from 4th Ed, slightly modified) We've been a bit slack about writing them down on the PC sheets lately, but we know they are available should we need them.

 

Of course, there must be valid reason for any skill to be taken, including everyman skills.

 

Mags

[Old Man]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I have to support the view that not every skill is an everyman skill. I have no clue about half of the skills in the book and I consider myself to be a fairly well rounded person. Think about it, would you personally be able to do every skill in the book at an 8-?

 

There is also the option to rebate points on everyman skills. They are considered familiarities so you essentially get a free point in them if you want to improve the skill.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

The notion that all skills should be designated as everyman skills is analogous to the notion that given enough time and enough laptops, an infinite number of monkeys could knock out the assembled works of Shakespeare.

 

In the abstract, it's true enough that if you look long enough, you'll find an example that seems to justify somebody somewhere suceeding in a task they have had no training in.

 

It's far easier to look upon these aberrations as the workings of a marshmallow GM who lets his players off the hook easy than to assume that everyone, everywhere has an equal chance of performing a successful brain surgery armed with a 6th grade education and a melon baller.

 

$0.02

[schir1964]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

Here is a system you can use that might alleviate the problems you are facing. I'm borrowing some concepts from another game system, but you can apply it directly to Hero without having to change anything within Hero.

 

As GM you simply designate the Task Level for any particular action. The works great because it's flexible yet simple and can be decided easily on the fly.

 

Task Level

Very Common: -10 to Skill Roll. Task is so common/easy that failure is the exception.

Common: -5 to Skill Roll. Task is common/easy. Failure occurs from time to time.

Uncommon: +5 to Skill Roll. Task requires skill/experience/practice for chance of success.

Very Uncommon: +10 to Skill Roll. Task requires skill/knowledge for chance of success.

 

You simply overlay this system with the current one to cover all possible tasks that character might attempt.

 

For those tasks that would be considered to be possible by everyman, they would be gauged as Very Common or Common.

 

For those tasks that would be considered impossiblle without some type of skill or special knowledge by the character would be gauged as Uncommon.

 

For those tasks that would be considered impossible even with a skill under normal circumstances would be gauged as Very Uncommon.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[arcady]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I'd also allow rolls sometimes where a 3 is necessary to succeed. And at that, it wouldn't be a good success.

 

Laz just figured out how he'd run rolls where the character has no skill

Yeah see that's where I'm at.

 

No matter how 'mall girl' you are... you will always have some remote chance of managing to survive in the wilderness...

 

At this point, the 8- of familiarity is indeed too high, and I agree it's not an everyman skill.

 

But Missy just might figure out how make shelter, she just might gather the right berries, she just might find a way to stay fed and warm and even make her way out.

 

The chance that she gets out healthy should not be zero.

 

The fact that 217 out of 218 people randomly put in front of a computer and told to make it do something will fail does not mean that person 218 will also always fail...

 

The chance might even be lower than that, but by taking her time, looking at the little book on the desk, or trying things over and over and discarding the failures without pulling out her hair... Missy just might make her first program without knowing what she was doing, or even being familiar with the process.

 

If she takes the right steps, she just might give herself a skill check modifier high enough to get her chance up to 3-. and then her player just might roll that 3.

 

She probably won't roll that 3, but she might, and she ought to be able to.

 

Maybe the odds are a million to one that if she were tossed onto a scene and told to diffuse the bomb, there would disaster, but there's still that one out there - that oddball random possibility that she will accidentally do it right.

 

By the book though, these are not everyman skills, and so Missy does not even get a skill check nor even an opportunity to shape circumstance to her benifit. She can take all the time she wants, be as careful as possible, but by the book she has zero chance of ever finding shelter or food, zero chance of ever getting that program to work, and zero chance of difussing that bomb.

 

I'm coming off of games like GURPS and d20 - where while there are a few 'trained only skills' that suffer this same problem, most of the system allows for a die roll - but at a stiff penalty for the untrained.

 

It seems as if Hero needs this. Looks like somebody on page one of the thread mentioned an option in the FAQ. I need to find out where this FAQ is...

 

No chance is infintately less than 'almost no chance'. By the book, Missy doesn't even get to make a skill roll, not even one with a penatly of 223. Failure is simply scripted in no matter how she tries to help herself out.

[nexus]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

Well, in a RPG some of those completely off the wall situations could be ascribed to a luck attribute, or the player coming up with a brilliant plan. I go for number two. If the player knows something and can justify to me how Missy might know it (I had an old boyfriend that was intent camping!") I'll let her try it. Of course this depends on mood and genre of the game. In a very realistic setting things would be more strict. Honestly how many completely unskilled people could be dropped into the middle of the wilderness and walk out perfectly healthy without some extreme luck. Walk or be carried out alive is more likely, but in fine shape? Or the bomb defusing situation. If all else fails, describe the wires and ask the player which one does she cut? That is what the character is doing "for real" so why not? She could guess lucky.

[caris]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

First of all, I dislike the implication that every character has some sort of bizzare chance at omniscience. Without knowledge skills they could possibly know everything? I'd rather not see that, thank you.

 

As far as your Mall Girl surviving in the Wilderness, I think you are really thinking more of a matter of simple dramatic license/luck. Your mall girl got lucky, so either you could handle this by using the game mechanic Luck, or you can make some sort of "god check". She got lucky, that isn't the same thing as having the skills to move luck in your favor.

 

As for the programming situation, I would argue that your girl hasn't so much done something without understanding it, as she has earned right to buy the familiarity, either discretionary from unspent points/experience or GM assigned points. I might let the player get by with it this first time as being optional. They can decide if they want to buy the skill or not, but if they keep doing this over and over again without ever buying the skill, I'm going to either make them start buying the skills as they use them, or the Talent, Cramming.

[Talon]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

I think that Hero definitely lacks a mechanic for resolving this kind of situation. Lying without Persuasion, bribing without Bribery, etc... there should be a rule for this, since it is a common occurrence. Definitely something I will be mentioning on that far off, distant day when 6th Edition is announced.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree?

 

Looks like somebody on page one of the thread mentioned an option in the FAQ. I need to find out where this FAQ is...

Assuming you're not being facetious, click on the "FAQs" link at the very top of this web page and then click on "Rules Questions" link.