Background skills

[zornwil]

Savage Worlds has a great skills approach in terms of background skills in that you basically define your background and your INT-type ability dictates your rolls with these, with a +2 for things you would have really been knowledgable about.

 

Now, of course, SW is a far less granular system. But one of the things I hate about cost-balancing characters in HERO is dealing with all the background skills they should have. This is particularly bad in heroic campaigns where points are scarce (and ought to be).

 

What if there were a similar approach in HERO? Define background, all such things are a single INT-based skill (no pluses in this system). Bascially you're not allowed to take preexisting other skills (presumably those are "cost-balanced") and let's say you can't take fields of study beyond, say, 1 or 2, with this approach, or some such thing. But you can take areas, cities, etc..

 

I think we sort of need this in HERO. ESPECIALLY if we want it to be a "heroic fiction" game. For "realism" one can always simply opt out of this rule.

 

Thoughts?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Background skills

 

Hmm. I don't know. I find that the definable Everyman PS and KSs, with maybe one or two more, typically cover this; seeing as you can make Background Skills as general or specific as you like, a character with a general background can define one or two Background Skills and be done. For those who want to be more specialized, one or two more complimenting skills, and/or some SLs, can do the job.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

I'll give you an example from a game - I had a naval captain from the Regency era. he travelled in the Indian Ocean and the European seas. He has knowledge to a reasonable degree of many ports in those areas. He has a basic knowledge of Indian customs. He grew up in the slums of London. he was supposed to have an interest in Indian trading and snuff boxes. And of course he has many Naval skills and knowledges. To represent these with the many 3 point skills was simply prohibitive in a 75+75 character. I had to cut a few naval skills and gloss over them and cut most of the Indian skills. Of course I used some general KSes but they really don't cover so well as something like this would. Plus in general, i don't think that it make ssense in a game about "heroic fiction" to make people invest heavily in the background skills to the exclusion of that which will be more immediately relevant. And moreover it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not, or develop that background as the game proceeds but then of course at least they become tied down to it and the character is enriched and the roleplaying bettered.

[Vondy]

Re: Background skills

 

I often have heroic characters with a significant investment in background skills because it would make sense for them to have the stuff, even if it seldom, if ever, comes up in play. What about this: build the character using the available points, and based on the background, negotiate the nonessentials (the background skills that likely serve more to flesh the character out than have much impact on play) with the game master? there would need to be some threshold and the GM could be picky about what he allows and doesn't, but it would allow for those additional things withough giving players additional points to sink into the major goodies that will unbalance the game or make the GM's life difficult. Another option might be to give the player more points (for instance, 100 + 75), but require 25 points be dedicated to background skills (approved by the GM).

[David Blue]

Re: Background skills

 

And moreover it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not' date=' or develop that background as the game proceeds but then of course at least they become tied down to it and the character is enriched and the roleplaying bettered.[/quote']I've gamemastered superheroes with a system that made a highly respectable quantity of skills free as part of your background, but further skills very expensive and requiring rationalisation.

 

I hope it will not shock you to learn that the thunderbolts of superheroic power bestowment fell with unerring accuracy on hard-bitten ex-cops, people who grew up right in the city where the game was set and so on, to the exclusion of dedicated philatelists and angsty teenagers whose families had moved cities recently from somewhere irrelevant. If the game was to be in Sydney, nobody had a background that required them to know anything about Perth or Hobart.

 

In other words, "it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not." It does indeed prod them hard to choose their backgrounds wisely.

 

Are you trying to simulate a genre where there's nobody lacking an artfully useful life story? If so, you've hit upon a great game mechanic. Making background an area where a character can win out "or suffer where not" in character construction will apply the discipline you want.

 

I was interested in a genre where it's normal for the most ordinary people to obtain the greatest power ("Shazam!"), and where even if a character has a colourful and violent background that might seem to qualify them for highly useful skills (Reed Richards), no such free skills are ever "cashed in". Background skills served me poorly. I would have been better off making background consequence and cost free, and merely a matter of picking whatever you liked or thought appropriate to the character and/or the genre.

[John Desmarais]

Re: Background skills

 

I'll give you an example from a game - I had a naval captain from the Regency era. he travelled in the Indian Ocean and the European seas. He has knowledge to a reasonable degree of many ports in those areas. He has a basic knowledge of Indian customs. He grew up in the slums of London. he was supposed to have an interest in Indian trading and snuff boxes. And of course he has many Naval skills and knowledges. To represent these with the many 3 point skills was simply prohibitive in a 75+75 character. I had to cut a few naval skills and gloss over them and cut most of the Indian skills. Of course I used some general KSes but they really don't cover so well as something like this would. Plus in general' date=' i don't think that it make ssense in a game about "heroic fiction" to make people invest heavily in the background skills to the exclusion of that which will be more immediately relevant. And moreover it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not, or develop that background as the game proceeds but then of course at least they become tied down to it and the character is enriched and the roleplaying bettered.[/quote']

 

My thoughts...

 

"Knowledge to a reasonable degree" to me sounds like an 11- roll, not an INT roll (although at Heroic level his INT roll it probably not much more than 11) - so I would go 2 not 3 poitns for most. It also sounds like most of these knowledge skills would fall under the "Traveller" skill enhancer, so drop another point off the cost. Depending on the exact mix of the other skills, Scholar may also be apppropriate.

 

At 1 point each you can buy a lot of background skills, even in a 75+disads game.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Background skills

 

My thoughts...

 

"Knowledge to a reasonable degree" to me sounds like an 11- roll, not an INT roll (although at Heroic level his INT roll it probably not much more than 11) - so I would go 2 not 3 poitns for most. It also sounds like most of these knowledge skills would fall under the "Traveller" skill enhancer, so drop another point off the cost. Depending on the exact mix of the other skills, Scholar may also be apppropriate.

 

At 1 point each you can buy a lot of background skills, even in a 75+disads game.

 

Have to agree here... this is what the Skill Enhancers are for...

 

... or better yet, only put down skills on the sheet as they should exist in a split second pressure situation.

 

To me, this means most Heroic, widely knowledgable character, have 8 or less in many things... because 8 or less is how well they do in a split second with a gun to their head.

 

Give 'em a minute... allow a quick Google search (or the settign equivalent) and you quickly push it up to 14 or less.

 

I do NOT think it is realistic to have multiple skills at full value, yet the plea I get from some players is "My spec-ops guy should have all these skills, 'cause that is what special forces teaches!"

 

Maybe they should have a lot... at 8 or less, because if you notice, things like bomb disarmament take minutes or hours and special equipment to do well, even by the experts... which means that 8 or less can get bumped up to 12 or less, pretty easily.

 

A lot of this "skill creep" as I call it can be directly traced back to Steve Long's anal retentive skill lists on Harbinger in the original Dark Champions.

 

I long for the days when you could just buy "PS: Lawyer" and be done with it, rather than have to list out...

 

PS: Practiciing Criminal Defense Attourney

KS: Legal Theory

KS: New York State Penal Code

KS: New York City Police Procedures

KS: Second District Court of Manhattan

KS: Number of hairs on the left butt cheek of Judge Wyman in the Second District Court

 

etc.

 

 

Hero Skill System pricing is left over from the days when a 200 point character was amazing if they spent 15 points on skills... because those skills were supposed to be relatively broad in scope for a supers game.

 

Ramping up things to 350 points so more skills can be bought for supers... well it kinda works... but then Heroic games suffer, as the desire for pedantic detail prices a "generally knowledgeable" character right out the door.

 

---------

 

Not even getting into the fact that skills are not balanced in terms of usefulness. PS: skills will never be as useful as Stealth... which keeps you alive ten times a gaming session... but they cost the same. I'd prefer skills to be listed as "Background: Never to be useful in pressure situations" and "Action Skills: The ones that are essential to the character being a cinematic hero."

 

Action skills cost a heckuva lot more than background.

 

Then, for someone like Bond... knowledge of wines and vintages would probably end up in Action Skills, because he uses that knowledge in split second pressurs situations... but then James is probably a 500 plus point character, as well.

[SirViss]

Re: Background skills

 

I understand the problems of not starting with all the skills a character should have. In the (Champions) camapign I am running, I have taken the liberty of adding up to 10 pts of background skills something like 5 or 6 session after a character joined the campaign. There are often some skills that you forget when write him up, and only think about later.

 

And I agree with John Desmarais that background skills that probably have no bearing on the campaign should be bought at 11- at most. "Passing Knowledge" to me means 8-, really. Then the GM has to just be a bit generous with freebie skill rolls. "You actually have that skill? No, don't roll, this is what you know."

[RDU Neil]

Re: Background skills

 

And I agree with John Desmarais that background skills that probably have no bearing on the campaign should be bought at 11- at most. "Passing Knowledge" to me means 8-, really. Then the GM has to just be a bit generous with freebie skill rolls. "You actually have that skill? No, don't roll, this is what you know."

 

Yup... as a GM, I rarely require rolls, unless it is critical to the story... a turningpoint... whether they know something or not.

 

Sometimes, if I assume they will eventually figure it out... the roll comes as "do they figure it out now, or later?" because knowing it now would likely change the course of events, compared to later.

 

I also try to avoid giving a flat "No" or "You don't know that" kind of answer.

 

Even if they just have an 8- I'll say something like, "You remember a salesman of snuffboxes mentioning something about that... but it was years ago. You'd have to do some research to try and find out anything specific, but at least you have an idea about where to start looking."

 

That kind of thing can go far with a player and for adding depth to a skill based character without a ton of investement to have everything at 14 or less.

[Battlestaff]

Re: Background skills

 

Here's a suggestion:

 

Write up your character with the things you think your character needs to begin the game with. Then make a list of background skills that you weren't able to afford that you think your character should have. Discuss this list with your GM. Then if a situation comes up in the game where one of the background skills should come into play, and you have available experience, you can buy the skill at the level you and the GM agreed on prior to play. You could also buy these skills normally as you accumulate experience.

 

This serves two purposes:

1) You can write up the character you want, even if you can't afford all the background right away; and

2) It gives the GM an idea of your character, so he can plan adventures around your background, or set up situations where these skills can be useful.

[Storn]

Re: Background skills

 

I think often GMs ask for rolls to stall for time.

 

And I love Savage Worlds, but i had the opposite gripe from players. They wanted more defined background skills to list. So they had a stronger sense of their characters. I came up with a house rule that gave them some flexibility and sorta free to not need more pts at chargen.

 

Granted, Hero can go a bit overboard in its parsing.. as Neil suggested.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

I often have heroic characters with a significant investment in background skills because it would make sense for them to have the stuff' date=' even if it seldom, if ever, comes up in play. What about this: build the character using the available points, and based on the background, negotiate the nonessentials (the background skills that likely serve more to flesh the character out than have much impact on play) with the game master? there would need to be some threshold and the GM could be picky about what he allows and doesn't, but it would allow for those additional things withough giving players additional points to sink into the major goodies that will unbalance the game or make the GM's life difficult. Another option might be to give the player more points (for instance, 100 + 75), but require 25 points be dedicated to background skills (approved by the GM).[/quote']

I think those are fair solutions, I think the idea of relegating the "non-essentials" to be "0 point background skills" is better than allocating a bunch of points just for those, because the former puts a reasonable but positive onus on the player to come up with that info in a coherent way while the latter is too tempting to just "throw stuff on the page". Not saying that either is black-and-white that way, of course, but that's the tendencies I believe would occur.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

I think often GMs ask for rolls to stall for time.

 

And I love Savage Worlds, but i had the opposite gripe from players. They wanted more defined background skills to list. So they had a stronger sense of their characters. I came up with a house rule that gave them some flexibility and sorta free to not need more pts at chargen.

 

Granted, Hero can go a bit overboard in its parsing.. as Neil suggested.

Just as a side note, I don't believe I have ever stalled by asking for a roll.

 

I just sit there looking stupid instead!

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

My thoughts...

 

"Knowledge to a reasonable degree" to me sounds like an 11- roll, not an INT roll (although at Heroic level his INT roll it probably not much more than 11) - so I would go 2 not 3 poitns for most. It also sounds like most of these knowledge skills would fall under the "Traveller" skill enhancer, so drop another point off the cost. Depending on the exact mix of the other skills, Scholar may also be apppropriate.

 

At 1 point each you can buy a lot of background skills, even in a 75+disads game.

For me, the problem is/was that even 1 point per port adds up pretty darn fast, and HERO has no construct for an 8- or 11- or whichever basis for grouping these very well. "Ports of the Indian Ocean" and "Ports of the European North Atlantic" are reasonable enough in one way and I did that, but in HERO such interpretations are rather...unclear as to what granularity can be afforded, and HERO is also very specific about these as AKs, not including things like cultural notions and some incidentals like being in the bazaars of India, dealing with beggars, et. al. All valid stuff for a GM to call and this GM in question is high caliber enough for none of this to truly be a problem in play, but it's a poor limitatin upon reflection, I believe.

 

Regardless, good point about Traveler.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

I've gamemastered superheroes with a system that made a highly respectable quantity of skills free as part of your background, but further skills very expensive and requiring rationalisation.

 

I hope it will not shock you to learn that the thunderbolts of superheroic power bestowment fell with unerring accuracy on hard-bitten ex-cops, people who grew up right in the city where the game was set and so on, to the exclusion of dedicated philatelists and angsty teenagers whose families had moved cities recently from somewhere irrelevant. If the game was to be in Sydney, nobody had a background that required them to know anything about Perth or Hobart.

 

In other words, "it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not." It does indeed prod them hard to choose their backgrounds wisely.

 

Are you trying to simulate a genre where there's nobody lacking an artfully useful life story? If so, you've hit upon a great game mechanic. Making background an area where a character can win out "or suffer where not" in character construction will apply the discipline you want.

 

I was interested in a genre where it's normal for the most ordinary people to obtain the greatest power ("Shazam!"), and where even if a character has a colourful and violent background that might seem to qualify them for highly useful skills (Reed Richards), no such free skills are ever "cashed in". Background skills served me poorly. I would have been better off making background consequence and cost free, and merely a matter of picking whatever you liked or thought appropriate to the character and/or the genre.

Re the genre, I'd say, it's that way, it's Shelley's playtest for Regency HERO, to spill the beans a bit, though I don't think I'm betraying any confidentiality there. I just feel like I'm name-dropping, but it answers your question!

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

I have a couple of reactions to this.

 

As a player, I do tend to pile on a lot of background skills since if a situation in-game shows up where the skills would be useful, I feel my character needs to have them. This tends to divert points away from main powers, but, on the other hand, it gives me a better grasp of the character - enough so that I think it helps me come up with alternative approaches to tricky situations. Sometimes I do go overboard, though, and wind up with skills like "Whittlin" on a 14-. Properly corralling background skills is definitely a metagame in itself. The Savage Worlds approach avoids most of this part of character creation, allowing me to focus on the background I want as opposed to the background I have points to pay for. Essentially, as a player, I'm fine either way, though the Savage Worlds approach does save a some time.

 

As a GM, I'm quite fond of the Savage Worlds approach since it entices players to come up with interesting backgrounds, which give me good spots to hang plot hooks on. I don't have to worry as much about creating situations that spotlight characters who have spent a lot of points on odd skills - I just need to work various backgrounds in from time to time.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

Another option might be to give the player more points (for instance' date=' 100 + 75), but require 25 points be dedicated to background skills (approved by the GM).[/quote']

 

I GM I used to play with used that approach and it worked OK. The main problem was that all background skills aren't created equal (KS: "European History" 18- vs Acrobatics 14-), and it could be hard making a call as to whether a skill should be a background skill or part of the player's regular combat arsenal. Still, the end result was a good step towards making sure everyone had non-combat options, and lowering the penalty on characters with detailed backgrounds.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

In other words, "it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not." It does indeed prod them hard to choose their backgrounds wisely.

 

Are you trying to simulate a genre where there's nobody lacking an artfully useful life story? If so, you've hit upon a great game mechanic. Making background an area where a character can win out "or suffer where not" in character construction will apply the discipline you want.

 

This is a reasonable criticism of the Savage Worlds approach, but I think it is the kind of thing that will setlle down over time.

 

The humble convenience store clerk might spend his time reading all the magazines in the rack. The couch potato might have an incisive knowledge of police procedures and general gossip. The stamp collector might have an excellent grasp of geography and world history. Bringing these kinds of backgrounds to relevance is just the kind of challenge that would appeal to the group I game with.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Background skills

 

I know it's often decried as a munchkinny approach, but for characters in Heroic-level games who have histories justifying lots of Background Skills, I've sometimes allowed very small Variable Power Pools, Limited just to the types of Skills they could be expected to know. The Active Points in the Pool limit the maximum Skill Roll from getting unreasonable.

 

Obviously this can be a very point-efficient approach, but the impact of Background Skills on the game is usually under the control of the GM, so it's not difficult to balance.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Background skills

 

I GM I used to play with used that approach and it worked OK. The main problem was that all background skills aren't created equal (KS: "European History" 18- vs Acrobatics 14-)' date=' and it could be hard making a call as to whether a skill should be a background skill or part of the player's regular combat arsenal. Still, the end result was a good step towards making sure everyone had non-combat options, and lowering the penalty on characters with detailed backgrounds.[/quote']

 

Action skills as RDU Neil called them are not background skills. If the skill is useful in combat it probably is not a background skill.

 

Hawksmoor

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

Action skills as RDU Neil called them are not background skills. If the skill is useful in combat it probably is not a background skill.

 

Hawksmoor

 

That kinda depends on how the GM says the points should be spent. In my GM's case, Acrobatics was allowed. In RDU Neil's case, the example might be "Knowledge of Ancient ancient Babylonian Merchants" vs "Knowledge of Campaign City." Same difference.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Background skills

 

Savage Worlds has a great skills approach in terms of background skills in that you basically define your background and your INT-type ability dictates your rolls with these' date=' with a +2 for things you would have really been knowledgable about.[/quote']

 

This is the system I promised to tell you about?

 

I stillhaven't found the time....

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Background skills

 

To spread out the availability of skills I have often just given a set of skills based on the background. At other times I have done as RDU Neil suggested and allowed an 8- roll but allowed a +1 for every PS or KS appropriate (+2 if the KS or PS was 15 or better).

 

 

Doc

[prestidigitator]

Re: Background skills

 

I'll give you an example from a game - I had a naval captain from the Regency era. he travelled in the Indian Ocean and the European seas. He has knowledge to a reasonable degree of many ports in those areas. He has a basic knowledge of Indian customs. He grew up in the slums of London. he was supposed to have an interest in Indian trading and snuff boxes. And of course he has many Naval skills and knowledges. To represent these with the many 3 point skills was simply prohibitive in a 75+75 character. I had to cut a few naval skills and gloss over them and cut most of the Indian skills. Of course I used some general KSes but they really don't cover so well as something like this would. Plus in general' date=' i don't think that it make ssense in a game about "heroic fiction" to make people invest heavily in the background skills to the exclusion of that which will be more immediately relevant. And moreover it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not, or develop that background as the game proceeds but then of course at least they become tied down to it and the character is enriched and the roleplaying bettered.[/quote']

I haven't done more than gloss over all the responses, but based on your description I would be inclined to give the character:

Cost  Skill
----  -----
EM+1  (KS)London: 11-
2     (KS)Seas and Ports of the Eastern Hemisphere: 11-
2     (KS)Indian culture
3     Navigation: 11-
EM    (PS)Naval Captain: 11-

 

...and then maybe a couple of other applicable skills like Trading and Languages. I wouldn't think that 8-15 points are all that prohibitive to a 150-point Heroic character.

[lemming]

Re: Background skills

 

Just as a side note, I don't believe I have ever stalled by asking for a roll.

 

I just sit there looking stupid instead!

I'll back him up on that.