Skills System - Out of Synch?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

The GM should assign reasonable modifiers to the difficulty of the task.

 

 

The problem is there is lots of should, and damn all in the big black (and green) book to help us out with it. I mean, compare the Skill roll modifiers table with the PER roll modifiers table or the combat modifiers table: it's rubbish. Hero is betraying its wargaming roots.

 

Even then, say you have a penalty of 5: enough to make even a 'master' of the skill (according to the book) likely to fail more often than succeed, the average competent is managing it one time in 10.

 

Simply adding in difficulty modifiers does not a skill system make.

 

Hero is not even making much of an effort in that direction. I'm sure the games you run with your decent application of difficulty, bonus and level of success is splendid. The point is it shouldn't be done on an ad hoc basic. there really should be rather more than a few sides on skill use in a book 600 pages long.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Right, now I really am going to get some chinese food....

[schir1964]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Sean,

 

I've been working on an Alternate Skill System that seems to address most of your concerns. Yet it still has fairly good compatibility with the current system. Just thought you should know.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Agent X]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

The problem is there is lots of should, and damn all in the big black (and green) book to help us out with it. I mean, compare the Skill roll modifiers table with the PER roll modifiers table or the combat modifiers table: it's rubbish. Hero is betraying its wargaming roots.

 

Even then, say you have a penalty of 5: enough to make even a 'master' of the skill (according to the book) likely to fail more often than succeed, the average competent is managing it one time in 10.

 

Simply adding in difficulty modifiers does not a skill system make.

 

Hero is not even making much of an effort in that direction. I'm sure the games you run with your decent application of difficulty, bonus and level of success is splendid. The point is it shouldn't be done on an ad hoc basic. there really should be rather more than a few sides on skill use in a book 600 pages long.

I don't agree. Unless you sacrifice detail in other areas you're talking about a much longer book. And I don't want too many charts.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I'll be honest, Sean...I'm less than enthused about your proposed "come as close as you can to your Skill Number without going over" idea. I'm playing HERO, not The Price Is Right.

 

On a slightly more serious note, I don't like it because it feels like being squeezed from above and below at the same time. Maybe I'm just claustrophobic, but I don't like that feeling, even conceptually.

 

Trying to put it slightly better: this feels like it narrows your options..."not only do you have to roll below your Skill Number, but you also have to make the margin between what you do roll and your Skill Number as narrow as possible." And I don't like the feeling of having my options narrowed.

[archermoo]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

One of this things that winds me up about this - and many other skill systems, is that it doesn't mirror reality. Someone who has an 8- chance shouldn't be able to succeed at a complex and difficult task in their skill just becasue they rolled a 4. their knowledge IS limited. It is (IMO) daft to explain away these freak rolls with 'well, maybe he saw something in a journal last week and it is fresh in his mind'. Rubbish. That undervalues skills enormously. Someone with a low skill roll should simply not be capable of the same degree of accomplishment as someone with a high skill roll. At basic tasks, it shouldn't matter: one might be as competent as another, but at difficult or complex tasks it should make all the difference in the world if you have studied for five years and worked on the job for 10 on the one hand or picked up an extra class at college on the other.

 

I'm not of the opinion that the dice should have as much sway as they are sometimes given. Life in fact or simulation is just not that random.

 

*shrug* Then don't do it that way. If you don't think that someone with an 8- in a skill should have any chance of doing a particular task, don't let them roll for it. Just tell them they don't know enough to be able to succeed. Simple. If you don't think that the dice should be able to affect things as much, don't let them. Again, it goes back to the art of Ref'ing.

[archermoo]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

The problem is there is lots of should, and damn all in the big black (and green) book to help us out with it. I mean, compare the Skill roll modifiers table with the PER roll modifiers table or the combat modifiers table: it's rubbish. Hero is betraying its wargaming roots.

 

Even then, say you have a penalty of 5: enough to make even a 'master' of the skill (according to the book) likely to fail more often than succeed, the average competent is managing it one time in 10.

 

Simply adding in difficulty modifiers does not a skill system make.

 

Hero is not even making much of an effort in that direction. I'm sure the games you run with your decent application of difficulty, bonus and level of success is splendid. The point is it shouldn't be done on an ad hoc basic. there really should be rather more than a few sides on skill use in a book 600 pages long.

 

Or it is allowing the Ref to decide how their world works. They provide the framework for the skill system, the Ref provides how it interacts with their world. Since obviously there are people that don't want to have to come up with how it interacts with their world, HERO is going to publish TUS. Which I'll pick up. Though much for the same reasons I've picked up most of the other books: For ideas to tweak my existing way of doing things, rather than as a blueprint on "how it works".

 

I could be wrong, but the more of your posts that I read, the more it seems to me that what you want is for HERO to be all objective, with little or no subjective. Personally I would prefer to leave the art in Ref'ing. I don't want it to be just science. I like some things to be taken care of on an ad hoc basis.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I know this is a bit off topic, but I just thought of it and wanted to share.

 

No, this is all very much on topic. We're discussing the Skills system's effectiveness on any and all levels. A lot of good ideas have been mentioned.

 

Sean, I really like where you were going with your degree of success idea. However, I am a huge fan of consistency in game design. There are no systems in place in the Hero System that operate under the 'roll close to your rating' premise. It's brilliant mind you, but it would be another convention added to a game that already has too many. Fortunately, the Hero System has several instances where the amount by which a roll is succeeded has an effect on play. Autofire for example, adds another hit for each 2 points by which a roll is made.

 

So rather than rolling close to your rating, require players to roll under their rating for greater degrees of success. This would make it impossible for low skills to exceed their ratings by much. An 8- could at best roll a 3 and achieve a margin of success of 5.

 

Take navigation:

 

Succeed by 0: find north

1: find where you are on a map

2: plot a course to another point on a map

3: calculate journey times and fuel requirements for a journey

4: plot a route (a journey passing through several points)

5: calculate journey times and fuel requirements for a journey

6: correct for environmental conditions on one leg of a route

7: correct for environmental conditions on a whole journey

8: plot a journey that keeps you hidden from cetain viewpoints

9: plot a route that reduces journey time and fuel requirements by 10%

etc...

 

The only problem with this is that it is effectively a retroactive modifier system. I still like the idea. Either on the front end or on the back, it allows players and GMs to reap the rewards or plunder of their actions. In the Ultimate Skill, I would like to see a list of example modifiers for each skill much like the list you’ve presented.

 

I am with Sean on the point of broad definitions for skills and what they can do.

 

I also assume that a PC with a requisite skill only needs to roll when they are doing something relatively challenging, and doing everday stuff is automatic with a purchased skill.

 

I'm still using 5E' date=' rather than 5ER, but I'm pretty sure there's still that table of Skill Modifiers. Right at the top is a +3 to +5 for routine tasks. I assume this applies for a routine task performed under stress, as apposed to routine performed under ideal lab conditions. And yes, for the most part, it's simply a lot easier to say the character has made his roll and move on. It's not so much a rule that routine tasks automatically succeed, it's simply good thinking on the GM's part.[/quote']

 

You're reading a different rulebook than I am concerning how skills work. As far as skill levels are concerned' date=' they work just fine. You seem to focus too narrowly on one issue, ignoring how the system solves elsewhere the problem you are "creating".[/quote']

 

I am aware of the modifiers and the reason for them. The problem is that they are inconsistent and lend themselves to something the rest of the system does not - Complete GM interpretation. If a character spends 12 END, they spend 12 END. If they take 52 points of Energy Damage and have an ED of 23, they take 29 Stun. If I have a Skill, the GM is expected to make an arbitrary decision either in the definition of the Skill, the modifiers that apply to the task, or just tell the player ‘Whatever, you made it’. That is effectively saying ‘Okay you shoot the bad guy with your zap. He’s dead. Don’t bother rolling’. Or even worse, ‘Okay you shoot the bad guy with your zap. Let me whip a number out of the air for his Defense.’

 

That’s not what a game is about. A game has rules, dice, and (hopefully) balance so that players can feel success or failure genuinely. Could you imagine playing Chess and having an opponent make an illegal move against you because it made ‘dramatic sense’? I know for a fact that if I spent points on something, Energy Blast or Skill, I would not want a GM to dismiss it frivolously. It invalidates the purchase and reiterates the fact that the Skills system is neither balanced with the rest of the Hero System in design, function, or points costs.

 

Yes, I understand that a roleplaying game is not Chess and not every instance can be governed, but a solid framework needs to be maintained. Just like you wouldn’t want to disregard the mechanics in the combat mechanics, the Skills system deserves equal respect. On that note, there will be times where Skills can clearly ‘Casual Strength’ a task. We all understand and accept that. The issue isn’t whether or not such an event should occur. It is a question of when, in as concrete a fashion as the rules for Casual Strength.

 

I think you're still missing the point. Obviously competence isn't going to be "to never fail a skill roll"' date=' as you seem to be implying. The best of the best fail, often regularly. It's been proven that you don't need to spend that much on a skill to be competent at it, yet you persist in stating that its necessary for enjoyable play. [/quote']

 

Competence is in fact not failing most of the time, especially not 37% of the time. I’ll agree no one is perfect, but my point is subtle. An 11- roll is not competent. It borders on amateurish. A 14- is competent (granting a 10% chance of failure per attempt). While there isn’t a huge difference between 11- and 14- on the surface, it is a 6 point difference in cost per Skill. That adds up fast when you’re talking about even the broader scoped set of 10 Skills. I don’t know about you, but spending an extra 60 points on something that a GM is likely to glaze over isn’t appealing to me.

 

I don't agree. Unless you sacrifice detail in other areas you're talking about a much longer book. And I don't want too many charts.

 

That is precisely my point. The Hero System is streamlined and balanced. The Skills system should be put in line with the design philosophies of the rest of the game. If it is done correctly, there will be less charts because the entire Skills system will function on the same premises, most likely ones that are already in the game such as its non identical twin the combat system.

 

Or it is allowing the Ref to decide how their world works. They provide the framework for the skill system, the Ref provides how it interacts with their world. Since obviously there are people that don't want to have to come up with how it interacts with their world, HERO is going to publish TUS. Which I'll pick up. Though much for the same reasons I've picked up most of the other books: For ideas to tweak my existing way of doing things, rather than as a blueprint on "how it works".

 

I could be wrong, but the more of your posts that I read, the more it seems to me that what you want is for HERO to be all objective, with little or no subjective. Personally I would prefer to leave the art in Ref'ing. I don't want it to be just science. I like some things to be taken care of on an ad hoc basis.

 

The more I read your posts, the more I think you are trying to turn Hero into another system, one of those free formed systems where the GM has ultimate power. One of the greatest strengths of the Hero System is so well balanced and defined that it could almost be played as a wargame without a GM. All except for Skills that is.

 

What we’re (I’m taking you down with me Sean ;-) ) talking about would provide a more solid structure, along with better points balance. Rest assured, there will certainly be a need for a GM to make interpretations even with that structure. A roleplaying game has never been able to account for all possible situations, nor will it. What we’re looking for is a greater degree of guidelines so that everyone has a clear sense of what is possible and how probable.

 

In real life I have a very good idea of how far I can throw a baseball, and to what degree of accuracy. This knowledge allows me to avoid foolish mishaps when I throw it. In a game of Hero, I know that my 10d6 will roll a 35 on average. Knowing this allows me to better pick my targets so that my choices as a player make the difference for my character and my party. This is one of the most important things we want for the Skills system – not just a set of arbitrary numbers for a GM to toss out on a whim, but a concise set of suggestions to allow us the ability to make educated decisions and calculated risks.

 

This is what makes the Hero System a game. It is what makes it fun and rewarding. Knowing that my wits as a player are what will decide the outcome is the reason to play a table top roleplaying game. Otherwise, you're either letting the character run on autopilot by using the same set of abilities regardless of the situation or you're just hanging out with your buddies coming up with a story. It is the merger of all three of these things that keeps us coming back to the table. If you take one out, it's dull. The thrill lies in taking those calculated risks and hoping your dice don't betray you. And when it all works out, oh how sweet the victory because you as the player earned it!

 

Clearly, the GM is still going to have to make a lot of judgment calls, but they’ll be within a few points of players’ expectations instead of wherever he pleases.

One of this things that winds me up about this - and many other skill systems' date=' is that it doesn't mirror reality. [/quote']

 

Mirroring reality is a whole lot of work that will slow a game session to a grinding halt.

 

Approximating reality is a whole lot easier. I think that’s what you meant though. Hero System is one of the best Systems I’ve ever seen when it comes to approximating reality while still maintaining playability – with the exception of the Skills System of course.

 

When there is a clear and almost tangible understanding of the differences in DEF and BODY of objects and materials, each able to reference one another as proofs, there should also be such a degree of mechanics for Skills.

 

‘The GM should wing it’ is not an acceptable mechanic when compared to the elegant design of the rest of the system.

 

When the ability to Navigate (I’m getting a lot of mileage out of that poor skill. Heh, mileage... Navigation… pun… okay I’ll stop) at a base level costs the same amount as Federal Police Powers, something is wrong with that approximation.

 

Skills are overpriced. It’s that simple.

 

Skills are not delineated. You pay a 3 point chunk for a base level, and then 2 points per additional rank. There’s not a whole lot of variation. The other elements of the Hero System allow characters to develop much more customized and varied degrees of power. Other games that operate on very similar mechanics allow characters to develop low levels of skills very cheaply, but require much greater investments to achieve masterful levels. This is as it should be. It shouldn’t take many points to have a base level of competence in a broad range of skills. Don’t try to convince me that an 8- Familiarity (less than a 25% chance of success) qualifies for this. Human beings develop menial levels of skill very easily.

 

Having game mechanics in place that represent the learning curve and the scope of a normal person's abilities is an approximation of reality, which is what we're after. The rest of the Hero System has it. Why can't the Skills mechanics?

 

Finally, the only reason I’m going to this great length is to try to make a great game greater. It’s got one flaw – mind you it’s not a huge flaw – but that’s one too many when the rest of the game is arguably the best table top roleplaying game ever created.

[Agent X]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

No, this is all very much on topic. We're discussing the Skills system's effectiveness on any and all levels. A lot of good ideas have been mentioned.

 

Sean, I really like where you were going with your degree of success idea. However, I am a huge fan of consistency in game design. There are no systems in place in the Hero System that operate under the 'roll close to your rating' premise. It's brilliant mind you, but it would be another convention added to a game that already has too many. Fortunately, the Hero System has several instances where the amount by which a roll is succeeded has an effect on play. Autofire for example, adds another hit for each 2 points by which a roll is made.

 

So rather than rolling close to your rating, require players to roll under their rating for greater degrees of success. This would make it impossible for low skills to exceed their ratings by much. An 8- could at best roll a 3 and achieve a margin of success of 5.

 

Take navigation:

 

Succeed by 0: find north

1: find where you are on a map

2: plot a course to another point on a map

3: calculate journey times and fuel requirements for a journey

4: plot a route (a journey passing through several points)

5: calculate journey times and fuel requirements for a journey

6: correct for environmental conditions on one leg of a route

7: correct for environmental conditions on a whole journey

8: plot a journey that keeps you hidden from cetain viewpoints

9: plot a route that reduces journey time and fuel requirements by 10%

etc...

 

The only problem with this is that it is effectively a retroactive modifier system. I still like the idea. Either on the front end or on the back, it allows players and GMs to reap the rewards or plunder of their actions. In the Ultimate Skill, I would like to see a list of example modifiers for each skill much like the list you’ve presented.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am aware of the modifiers and the reason for them. The problem is that they are inconsistent and lend themselves to something the rest of the system does not - Complete GM interpretation. If a character spends 12 END, they spend 12 END. If they take 52 points of Energy Damage and have an ED of 23, they take 29 Stun. If I have a Skill, the GM is expected to make an arbitrary decision either in the definition of the Skill, the modifiers that apply to the task, or just tell the player ‘Whatever, you made it’. That is effectively saying ‘Okay you shoot the bad guy with your zap. He’s dead. Don’t bother rolling’. Or even worse, ‘Okay you shoot the bad guy with your zap. Let me whip a number out of the air for his Defense.’

 

That’s not what a game is about. A game has rules, dice, and (hopefully) balance so that players can feel success or failure genuinely. Could you imagine playing Chess and having an opponent make an illegal move against you because it made ‘dramatic sense’? I know for a fact that if I spent points on something, Energy Blast or Skill, I would not want a GM to dismiss it frivolously. It invalidates the purchase and reiterates the fact that the Skills system is neither balanced with the rest of the Hero System in design, function, or points costs.

 

Yes, I understand that a roleplaying game is not Chess and not every instance can be governed, but a solid framework needs to be maintained. Just like you wouldn’t want to disregard the mechanics in the combat mechanics, the Skills system deserves equal respect. On that note, there will be times where Skills can clearly ‘Casual Strength’ a task. We all understand and accept that. The issue isn’t whether or not such an event should occur. It is a question of when, in as concrete a fashion as the rules for Casual Strength.

 

 

 

Competence is in fact not failing most of the time, especially not 37% of the time. I’ll agree no one is perfect, but my point is subtle. An 11- roll is not competent. It borders on amateurish. A 14- is competent (granting a 10% chance of failure per attempt). While there isn’t a huge difference between 11- and 14- on the surface, it is a 6 point difference in cost per Skill. That adds up fast when you’re talking about even the broader scoped set of 10 Skills. I don’t know about you, but spending an extra 60 points on something that a GM is likely to glaze over isn’t appealing to me.

 

 

 

That is precisely my point. The Hero System is streamlined and balanced. The Skills system should be put in line with the design philosophies of the rest of the game. If it is done correctly, there will be less charts because the entire Skills system will function on the same premises, most likely ones that are already in the game such as its non identical twin the combat system.

 

 

 

The more I read your posts, the more I think you are trying to turn Hero into another system, one of those free formed systems where the GM has ultimate power. One of the greatest strengths of the Hero System is so well balanced and defined that it could almost be played as a wargame without a GM. All except for Skills that is.

 

What we’re (I’m taking you down with me Sean ;-) ) talking about would provide a more solid structure, along with better points balance. Rest assured, there will certainly be a need for a GM to make interpretations even with that structure. A roleplaying game has never been able to account for all possible situations, nor will it. What we’re looking for is a greater degree of guidelines so that everyone has a clear sense of what is possible and how probable.

 

In real life I have a very good idea of how far I can throw a baseball, and to what degree of accuracy. This knowledge allows me to avoid foolish mishaps when I throw it. In a game of Hero, I know that my 10d6 will roll a 35 on average. Knowing this allows me to better pick my targets so that my choices as a player make the difference for my character and my party. This is one of the most important things we want for the Skills system – not just a set of arbitrary numbers for a GM to toss out on a whim, but a concise set of suggestions to allow us the ability to make educated decisions and calculated risks.

 

This is what makes the Hero System a game. It is what makes it fun and rewarding. Knowing that my wits as a player are what will decide the outcome is the reason to play a table top roleplaying game. Otherwise, you're either letting the character run on autopilot by using the same set of abilities regardless of the situation or you're just hanging out with your buddies coming up with a story. It is the merger of all three of these things that keeps us coming back to the table. If you take one out, it's dull. The thrill lies in taking those calculated risks and hoping your dice don't betray you. And when it all works out, oh how sweet the victory because you as the player earned it!

 

Clearly, the GM is still going to have to make a lot of judgment calls, but they’ll be within a few points of players’ expectations instead of wherever he pleases.

 

 

Mirroring reality is a whole lot of work that will slow a game session to a grinding halt.

 

Approximating reality is a whole lot easier. I think that’s what you meant though. Hero System is one of the best Systems I’ve ever seen when it comes to approximating reality while still maintaining playability – with the exception of the Skills System of course.

 

When there is a clear and almost tangible understanding of the differences in DEF and BODY of objects and materials, each able to reference one another as proofs, there should also be such a degree of mechanics for Skills.

 

‘The GM should wing it’ is not an acceptable mechanic when compared to the elegant design of the rest of the system.

 

When the ability to Navigate (I’m getting a lot of mileage out of that poor skill. Heh, mileage... Navigation… pun… okay I’ll stop) at a base level costs the same amount as Federal Police Powers, something is wrong with that approximation.

 

Skills are overpriced. It’s that simple.

 

Skills are not delineated. You pay a 3 point chunk for a base level, and then 2 points per additional rank. There’s not a whole lot of variation. The other elements of the Hero System allow characters to develop much more customized and varied degrees of power. Other games that operate on very similar mechanics allow characters to develop low levels of skills very cheaply, but require much greater investments to achieve masterful levels. This is as it should be. It shouldn’t take many points to have a base level of competence in a broad range of skills. Don’t try to convince me that an 8- Familiarity (less than a 25% chance of success) qualifies for this. Human beings develop menial levels of skill very easily.

 

Having game mechanics in place that represent the learning curve and the scope of a normal person's abilities is an approximation of reality, which is what we're after. The rest of the Hero System has it. Why can't the Skills mechanics?

 

Finally, the only reason I’m going to this great length is to try to make a great game greater. It’s got one flaw – mind you it’s not a huge flaw – but that’s one too many when the rest of the game is arguably the best table top roleplaying game ever created.

I disagree with pretty much your entire thought process. I said in one sentence what you took a lot of words to say in response to me.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I'd say the best of the best only fail regularly at the difficultest of the difficult. They succeed almost all the time at the routinest of the routine

Isn't that the cutest of the cute?

 

I'd go further though. In the skill system I want to see the mediocerist of the mediocre wouldn't have any chance of succeeding at the difficultest of the difficult even if they did roll a 3.

 

I think a high skill should give you capabilities that a low skill doesn't, not just a higher chance of success at any given level.

 

There are an infinite number of monkies with Physics 11- and only one or two with Physics 17-. Who came up with general relativity? it is not all about chance.

I absolutely agree, but in addition to chance, there's also ambition, desire and attempt. A monkey with an 11- Physics roll probably won't even try to develop some revolutionary way of boiling the universe down to a simple equation... not without making it his life's work. And think about it. There are lots of examples of mediocre people succeeding at something austounding, but in almost every case, it's something they dedicated their life to accomplishing. And think about those time modifiers!

 

As to what people can and can't do, I feel that everyone with even the basest capacity is capable of nearly anything in relation to it. It's just the chance of success is impossibly remote for the more difficult tasks. The reason the mediocre never succeed in such things is because they rarely try, and the few who do predictably fail.

 

Mind you, at the other end of the scale I'd be happy enough to rule that if you had sufficient skill to give you, after all bonuses and penalties, at least a 14- chance of succeeding (equivalent to having helpful equipment/references and extra time under normal conditions), there is no need to roll. So if you could accomplish an easy 'routine' task that would give you a +1 bonus and you have no penalties to apply there is no need to roll if your skill is at least 13-.

 

Anyway, that's what I think. I'm going to go get a chinese meal and cogitate some.

 

From a role-playing perspective, I agree completely. For the same reasons I give above even. If success is pretty much guarenteed, why bother with that unheroic chance of failure? Just for fun and tension, and to keep the sense of failure a "reality" to the players, I'll roll some dice behind my screen though. Knowing you'll succeed and have no chance of failure is just as unfun as failing at the one heroic task that brings the game to a halt.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I disagree with pretty much your entire thought process. I said in one sentence what you took a lot of words to say in response to me.

Ah, err...the implication here is that a shorter argument will be listened to more readily and will hold more weight, a notion I find...absolutely true! I've skipped a number of long-winded posts on this thread. You are all lucky I am too lazy to follow the conversation, because otherwise I would probably be reading only the short arguments. As it is the long arguments make me want to ignore the whole discussion.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

A monkie....

Is that a diminuative monk, or an illiterate monkey?

 

EDIT: I'm sorry. I should really stop now. I'm not exactly contributing anything worthwhile to this conversation, whatever this conversation might actually be at this point--see my above post.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I disagree with pretty much your entire thought process. I said in one sentence what you took a lot of words to say in response to me.

 

I have to ask. If you disagree with my entire thought process, how is it I ended up agreeing with you?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Is that a diminuative monk, or an illiterate monkey?

 

Call it poor editing actually. I had originally typed "monkies", then changed my plural example to singular. Curse this complex English language... why can't we all just use Latin? People would have more time to think if we didn't spend so much time thinking about the language we use to communicate those thoughts.

[archermoo]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

The more I read your posts, the more I think you are trying to turn Hero into another system, one of those free formed systems where the GM has ultimate power. One of the greatest strengths of the Hero System is so well balanced and defined that it could almost be played as a wargame without a GM. All except for Skills that is.

 

What we’re (I’m taking you down with me Sean ;-) ) talking about would provide a more solid structure, along with better points balance. Rest assured, there will certainly be a need for a GM to make interpretations even with that structure. A roleplaying game has never been able to account for all possible situations, nor will it. What we’re looking for is a greater degree of guidelines so that everyone has a clear sense of what is possible and how probable.

 

In real life I have a very good idea of how far I can throw a baseball, and to what degree of accuracy. This knowledge allows me to avoid foolish mishaps when I throw it. In a game of Hero, I know that my 10d6 will roll a 35 on average. Knowing this allows me to better pick my targets so that my choices as a player make the difference for my character and my party. This is one of the most important things we want for the Skills system – not just a set of arbitrary numbers for a GM to toss out on a whim, but a concise set of suggestions to allow us the ability to make educated decisions and calculated risks.

 

This is what makes the Hero System a game. It is what makes it fun and rewarding. Knowing that my wits as a player are what will decide the outcome is the reason to play a table top roleplaying game. Otherwise, you're either letting the character run on autopilot by using the same set of abilities regardless of the situation or you're just hanging out with your buddies coming up with a story. It is the merger of all three of these things that keeps us coming back to the table. If you take one out, it's dull. The thrill lies in taking those calculated risks and hoping your dice don't betray you. And when it all works out, oh how sweet the victory because you as the player earned it!

 

Clearly, the GM is still going to have to make a lot of judgment calls, but they’ll be within a few points of players’ expectations instead of wherever he pleases.

 

Well, since the HERO system rules explicitly state in several places the the GM has ultimate power, I'm not sure that I'm the one that is changing what the system is about. You seem to make the implicit assumption that if the way the skills interact with the world is not explicitly written up in the core rules book, no Ref will be capable of being consistant in their application of their chosen way of dealing with skills, and that things will be based on a whim. That isn't a valid assumption, and since it seems like your entire problem with the current system is based on that assumption, to my mind at least it pretty much invalidates your entire objection.

 

What it boils down to is that you seem to want Ref'ing HERO to be mostly science, and I like it as the current mix of art and science that it is. I have no interest in RPGs that can be played as a wargame with no Ref. Or even ones that come close to it. If I want to play a wargame, I'll play a wargame. My degree of enjoyment is not derived from the amount of latitude that the Ref has in running his game.

[archermoo]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I have to ask. If you disagree with my entire thought process' date=' how is it I ended up agreeing with you?[/quote']

 

I don't think you did. I think you decided that he meant something other than what he said, and then agreed with that.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Call it poor editing actually. I had originally typed "monkies"' date=' then changed my plural example to singular. Curse this complex English language... why can't we all just use Latin? People would have more time to think if we didn't spend so much time thinking about the language we use to communicate those thoughts.[/quote']

Well, it's, "monkeys," too you know. I hate English spelling myself. wI kant wE just spel things fOnetiklE? But LATIN?! I'd never get the tenses right.

[Agent X]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Ah' date=' err...the implication here is that a shorter argument will be listened to more readily and will hold more weight, a notion I find...[b']absolutely true![/b] I've skipped a number of long-winded posts on this thread. You are all lucky I am too lazy to follow the conversation, because otherwise I would probably be reading only the short arguments. As it is the long arguments make me want to ignore the whole discussion.

[Agent X]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I have to ask. If you disagree with my entire thought process' date=' how is it I ended up agreeing with you?[/quote'] I don't like how you come to your conclusions and I can tell from your posts it would take too long for us to figure each other out.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I don't like how you come to your conclusions and I can tell from your posts it would take too long for us to figure each other out.

 

Yes, it looks like we approach the game from fundementally different perspectives, and that's certainly fine. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I don't think everyone has the right to enjoy the game however suits them best or interpret the rules as makes them most comfortable.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I decided it would be better to offer solutions than debate theory.

 

Here are some options that I have come up with for Skills.

 

Skills Option 1 - Graduated Costs

Rather than requiring characters to pay a flat 3 points for competence in a Skill, allow them to invest points in proportion to their efforts in the subject.

 

Cost Value

½=(Char/5)+6

1=(Char/5)+7

2=(Char/5)+8

3=(Char/5)+9

5=(Char/5)+10

7=(Char/5)+11

+2=+1 Rank

 

Design Notes: This chart is based on the 3/2 costs for Skills. While it may seem trivial, allowing players to save a few points here and there can really add up.

 

However, the chart effectively replaces an 8- Familiarity with the ½ point value since an average Characteristic would be (Char/5)+6 or 2+6 or 8-. This also allows characters with higher characteristics to be inherently more competent with little training. If you do not like this feature, make the ½ point cost only buy a straight 8- roll or allow players to buy a straight 8- roll for ¼ point.

 

 

Skills Option 2 – Open Skill

Add a new Skill to the game that is open to be described, much the same way as the exact effects of Powers are.

 

Skill – The character has competence in an area defined by the player or GM. This field of proficiency can be anything the player desires and the GM approves. Use the rules in the Hero System to provide examples of how to define the effects of a Skill.

 

Costs: As per Skills

 

Limitation – Specialization (–½) The Skill is especially limited. Ex: PS – Psychologist – Rehabilitation Counselor, KS: History - Mongolian, Paramedic - First Aid. These Skills generally used to augment other Skill Rolls.

 

Advantage – Broad (+½) The Skill has especially wide scope. Ex: Academics, Science, Athletics. These Skills allow players to buy much fewer skills while retaining competence.

 

Design notes: This is effectively what the game designers have at their disposal when creating new Skills. It seems only logical that in a game system as flexible as Hero that the players should have it too. While this might look like a simplified PS or KS, it is much more adaptable.

 

Skills Option 3 – Degree of Success

Just as a Skill can increase another Skill for each 2 points by which it made the roll, we can assume that this amount also indicates degree of success.

 

Success by 0-1 – Marginal Success. (Up to a +0 Modifier)

Success by 2-3 – Moderate Success. (Up to a +1 Modifier)

Success by 4-5 – Serious Success. (Up to a +2 Modifier)

Success by 6-7 – Decisive Success. (Up to a +3 Modifier)

Success by 8-9 – Extreme Success. (Up to a +4 Modifier)

Success by 10+ – Complete Success. (Up to a +5 Modifier)

 

Designer’s Notes: This option is effectively retroactive difficulty. Use Difficulty modifiers that are directly related to the task sparingly, it at all, in conjunction with it. For example, a doctor may need to have Decisive Success to perform an operation. Do not increase the Difficulty of the roll for the operation, but do increase the difficulty for environmental modifiers such as stressful conditions.

 

However, it may just be simpler to use Difficulty normally and use this system as a descriptor for when characters succeed to indicate how well. That being the case, the chart could also be inverted to describe how badly they fail.

 

Finally, this chart could be used to generate modifiers for related or next actions to spice up game play.

[casualplayer]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Something that I have noticed in a lot of characters, forum-spread and published is that people run with just the base CHAR + STAT/5 level at 3 pts. Maybe a few levels to multishare between some related skills or some Overall Levels "if they aren't being used for something important." Don't any GMs make things difficult? Sure your 11- Combat Driving might get the car started but I don't want to be a passenger when you hit an oil slick and are rolling at a -4 to the roll. Maybe an actor with an 11- Acting roll can make a living if only slightly less than half of his performances suck. Catch a doctor with an 11- KS: Diagnosis on a good day and he may notice what's wrong with you.

 

The reason why, say, Nightwing is a renowned acrobat is because he has like a 30- Acrobatics roll. He can have his hands tied, be standing in mud, not stretch out, have no prep time and still peg the 4 somersault standing leap across the chasm.

 

An 11- means you blow it in the clinch. Often. You aren't "good" until you approach 20-. Which means in an emergency you are somewhat reliable as you are modified downward by -4 to -8.

 

The system isn't out of synch. The use of it is.

[archermoo]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I decided it would be better to offer solutions than debate theory.

 

Here are some options that I have come up with for Skills.

 

Skills Option 1 - Graduated Costs

Personally, I don't really see a need for it, but if you do, cool.

 

Skills Option 2 – Open Skill

You can already do this, and most Refs I know already do.

 

And as far as specialization and generalization go, I didn't realize there were people that didn't already pretty much take care of that as well. The more specifically you define a skill, the more useful it is when looking for information/doing something within it's perview. However since it is narrowly defined it is less useful the further outside that narrow speciality. If one character has World History on a 18-, and another has History of the Mongolian Empire 1280-1400 15-, even though the one with World History has a better raw roll, they'd have to get a pretty good success to pick specifics about the Mongols, since their knowledge is very general in nature. The Mongolian expert would just need a simple success for some types of info, and for trivial info (names of the Khans, years of conquest, etc) I wouldn't even make them roll, wheras I would make the person with World History roll. But the Mongol expert wouldn't even get a roll to come up with info about 8th Century Europe, whereas the generalist with World History would.

Skills Option 3 – Degree of Success

Another one of those that I didn't realize that people didn't already do. The more you make a roll by, the better you succeeded. Already basically part of the system with Skill vs Skill.

 

I am assuming that all of these will be things that TUS will be addressing.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Something that I have noticed in a lot of characters, forum-spread and published is that people run with just the base CHAR + STAT/5 level at 3 pts. Maybe a few levels to multishare between some related skills or some Overall Levels "if they aren't being used for something important." Don't any GMs make things difficult? Sure your 11- Combat Driving might get the car started but I don't want to be a passenger when you hit an oil slick and are rolling at a -4 to the roll. Maybe an actor with an 11- Acting roll can make a living if only slightly less than half of his performances suck. Catch a doctor with an 11- KS: Diagnosis on a good day and he may notice what's wrong with you.

 

An 11- means you blow it in the clinch. Often. You aren't "good" until you approach 20-. Which means in an emergency you are somewhat reliable as you are modified downward by -4 to -8.

 

The system isn't out of synch. The use of it is.

 

Thank you.

 

One of the biggest problems with the Skills system is that the rankings do not perform as they are described. When I have stated that the Skill Rankings are low, the arguments have been 'Well, an 18- is one of the greatest practitioners in History' or '11- is Competent'.

 

The problem is, while the book describes rankings this way, they do not perform as such.

 

While it is true that Skill Modifiers can turn an 8- into a 16- or more under ideal conditions, the fact of the matter is that Heroes and especially Superheroes seldom use their Skills in ideal situations. It is usually quite the opposite. If the Skill Modifiers listed in the book are canon, then the worst case scenario is a -28 or less. Let me repeat, NEGATIVE 28. A typical situation in which a Hero will need to use a Skill is probably akin to a -3 for Difficult, a -2 for Poor Conditions, -3 for Combat Conditions, and -2 for Improper Equipment. Wala, -10. That brings one of the greatest practitioners in history down to a 25% chance to succeed in your basic action scene, not to mention that the Competent character has a 1- roll. Tone those modifiers down a bit, and most characters still have a serious problem finding success.

 

So, what you end up with is a situation in which GMs have to just wing it in order to keep the game exciting and balanced. Instead of deciding on appropriate modifiers for the tasks in his game, he has to take the Skill of the character attempting a task and arbitrarily modify it to make things 'dramatic'. The problem with that is simple. If a GM randomly came up with a number for the DCV or Defense of your opponents every time you attacked them, you wouldn't be enjoying the game that you spent so much time and effort crafting a character into a concrete set of points for.

 

Having the Skills system operate like this is just plain arbitrary and goes against the design principles of the rest of the game.

 

I think the most important thing that needs to be addressed in the TUS is what exactly constitutes an unmodified attempt with a Skill? Judging from the responses in this thread, there is not a clear answer, nor is there a gestalt understanding.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Well' date=' it's, "monkeys," too you know. I hate English spelling myself. wI kant wE just spel things fOnetiklE? But [i']LATIN[/i]?! I'd never get the tenses right.

 

Ah crap. Why did I have to be a math geek not born in ancient Greece?