Radical Approach To Skills

[Markdoc]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Ok, for a house rule for your own game, fine. I don't think it works well in general; to me this is a case of putting 'realism' before game balance and dynamics, while I think the latter is more important. Moreover, I think action heroes and superheroes who are broadly skilled are very in-genre and shouldn't be penalized any more than they already are for spending points in skills. YMMV, of course, and clearly does.

 

I'm not even sure it's that realistic - a really smart generalist *can* often outperform a not-terribly smart specialist even in their specialised area: unless that area requires translational skills (code-writing, or speaking a foreign language, for example) or muscle-memory skills (disassembling a specialised piece of equipment, say) where practice counts.

 

cheers, Mark

[Zed-F]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Hence why I put quotes around the word realism -- I'm not convinced it's realistic either.

[Zed-F]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

They supposedly only take the best...of those stupid enough to join the military. Sorry' date=' but I will differ from most in questioning very greatly the intelligence of those willing to do that. It probably doesn't matter in any case, though, as we are almost always interested in playing the mythical heroic version of these people rather than a truly realistic version.[/quote']

There are lots of reasons people join the military. Some people may have been brought up to have a highly developed sense of duty and/or patriotism -- that is, strong emotional reasons to join the military. Some people come from the working poor and have no other options if they want to go to college. Others may be trapped in ghetto or poverty-stricken lifestyles and not have many other options to get out. None of these reasons for joining the military preclude intelligence in any way.

 

I'll grant that a lot of people who join the military may not be all that smart. A lot of people who do join the military are smart enough to get college degrees, though, and go on to become successful in careers requiring intelligence both in and outside the military. Painting everyone who joins the military as stupid is using a very broad brush and a conceit that only those who grew up in a privelaged environment can afford -- and I speak as someone who grew up in a privelaged environment.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

If it's not to late to mention another use of INT---

 

like GA, I look upon intelligence as an ability to comprehend and learn. The higher the INT, the more easily a character grasps something. And I believe that even a 'lo-q' character-- or person-- can learn just as many things, but will be more required to buckle down and work for it. INT seems more, to me, like the ability to immediately understand abstracts, make connections, draw conclusions, etc---

 

it's a measure of how --

crud, I wish there were words within my vocabulary for what I'm trying to say. The best I can do is to offer an example:

the way that some people leap into advanced math with only the most rudimentary of explanations, all the while going "well of course! That makes perfect sense!" while other people will need to have the basics pounded into them before they 'see the light.' Everyone can learn all these things, but some people swim right off into it on their own.

 

 

To that end, one of the uses for high INT characters in my own campaigns is related skills and skill modifiers. A character with a remarkable INT score is more likely to be allowed to try to do something with a skill that is dissimilar, but with certain common traits, or he may be able to use several complimentary skills instead of one or two, with the justification that he has found a subtle (to others) but definate connection between many areas of the skills.

 

 

Just my own way of doing it; nothing earth-shattering. This just seemed like the place to put it.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Are you going to change PRE-based skills around in a similar fashion too? What about Dex-based skills? [/Quote]

 

Well, to be fair, RDU Neil was suggesting that INT puts a limit on the number of skills that a character might know at any one time. That would affect all char-based skills equally.

 

If you have read most of his posts you'd see that his style allows players to use their skills flexibly and broadly thus playing an action adventure style where skills might be used wherever the stretch of the mind might take them.

 

It might work for some games' date=' but I don't think making it harder to get high-value skills is really going to help anything for most games. Isn't it in genre for most action heroes and superheroes to be highly competent sorts of people? Having a broad skill base at a good skill level is part and parcel of that. [/Quote']

 

I understand why you think it would make it harder to get high value skills (but just because you remove a characteristic base doesn't mean you then start a skill at 9 or 10 or even 11). You could also allow a relevant stat to be a supplementary as appropriate - it would make the skills more flexible that way.

 

Ok' date=' for a house rule for your own game, fine. I don't think it works well in general; to me this is a case of putting 'realism' before game balance and dynamics, while I think the latter is more important. [/quote']

 

I'm not sure that this is right. I think it would depend on the game - and I think RDU Neil would agree that particular genres might be better suited to such arrangements than others.

 

Personally I think that Sean's request for far more discussion on how to use skills in the rulebook is right. There are so many ways to use and decisions to make by the GM on these and yet they get almost no consideration at all. Obviously the Ultimate Skill book should remedy the lack but the core rulebook needs to have a bit more consideration of this part of the rules.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

INT seems more, to me, like the ability to immediately understand abstracts, make connections, draw conclusions, etc---

 

it's a measure of how --

crud, I wish there were words within my vocabulary for what I'm trying to say.

 

I believe the term you are looking for is 'the intuitive leap'.

 

Getting to the solution without having to go through all of the intermediate logical steps.

 

 

Doc

[Phil]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Personally not sure I like this idea, but it's certainly an interesting concept. Personally I like skills systems which are fully-integrated to the characeristics, e.g. Climbing is just a sub-skill of the Meta-skill Dexterity. HERO doesnt take this approach, instead having skills as character bolt ons that, in some cases, provide new special abilities. This concept compliments the HERO philosophy nicely, but doesn't suit my own. C'est la vie.

 

I was wondering whether you might like to treat Familiarity in a different way, though. It strikes me that characters ought to be able to utilise their high INT in two different ways: some might take a few skills and use their intelligence to be very effective at them; others might have a high boredom threshold and spread themselves thinly but across many more areas than less intelligent people might achieve. Perhaps accomodate this by having familiarities counting as 50% of a KS?

 

Hmm, I can feel myself heading off to extremes on this theory of limited intelligence to an entirely new skill model where the characteristic reflects the maximum learning possible within each skill group. Each familiarity "costs" 1 point, each full skill "costs" 2 points and each skill level thereafter "costs" another point, to a maximum of the characteristic. So 20 INT can give you 20 familiarities; 10 familiarities and 5 skills; or 6 familiarities and 2 skills at +5.

 

Or something like that. Not that I actually like the idea myself ....

[prestidigitator]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

There are lots of reasons people join the military. Some people may have been brought up to have a highly developed sense of duty and/or patriotism -- that is, strong emotional reasons to join the military. Some people come from the working poor and have no other options if they want to go to college. Others may be trapped in ghetto or poverty-stricken lifestyles and not have many other options to get out. None of these reasons for joining the military preclude intelligence in any way.

 

I'll grant that a lot of people who join the military may not be all that smart. A lot of people who do join the military are smart enough to get college degrees, though, and go on to become successful in careers requiring intelligence both in and outside the military. Painting everyone who joins the military as stupid is using a very broad brush and a conceit that only those who grew up in a privelaged environment can afford -- and I speak as someone who grew up in a privelaged environment.

Well, I'm not going to respond to most of this as it is clearly bait, but I will say that I don't think it takes much intelligence to realize that, "selling one's soul," is never worth the price, however great and however tempting. In this we can differ.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Well' date=' I'm not going to respond to most of this as it is clearly bait, but I will say that I don't think it takes much intelligence to realize that, "selling one's soul," is never worth the price, however great and however tempting. In this we can differ. [/quote']

 

If we could still give negative reputation, this would get it. Shame on you.

[schir1964]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

If we could still give negative reputation' date=' this would get it. Shame on you.[/quote']

Zed-F's post came across to me as a little inflamatory due to the severe nature of Prestigidator's opinion, whether right or wrong, in his original post. Granted that Prestigidator response could also be considered on the trollish side, but came across to me as only his opinion and not trying to single out anyone specifically. He should know better. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Shike019]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

I don't know if this particular thing has been said yet, but the way I look at INT effecting KS's and SS's is that you gain the knowledge assimilate the knowledge and then Expand the knowledge. The high skill rolls (according to the book) are supposed to be you are the leeding expert in the area and you discover new ways of using the skill. Example. My character has a 21- KS: Chinese Healing (works as SS: Medicine according to UMA) and while working on a patient, my character was able to bring a patient safely out of a 45 year coma w/o using very many tools, in a relatively short period of time ( I believe it was less than 15 min). Of course my character has had centuries of practice, but the point is that almost no other living practitioner of chinese healing could probably do this. It is in this realm that i believe that INT and other characteristics should always be connected to skills. Thought there is the debate that there should usually be multiple characteristics connected to most skills. Such as str and dex connected to Acrobatics. But that, again, is my opinion and won't discuss herel:)

[prestidigitator]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

I'm fine with dropping it anyway. As I said...

Sorry' date=' but I will differ from most in questioning very greatly the intelligence of those willing to do that. It probably doesn't matter in any case, though, as we are almost always interested in playing the mythical heroic version of these people rather than a truly realistic version.[/quote']

...it is the mythical, heroic version of the people in question we are dealing with. The cinematic version, if you will. It really doesn't matter if we are all in agreement over whether and how much that differs from reality. I will certainly agree that the figures we are typically representing game-wise tend to have an intelligence that is above average.

 

The, "Elite Soldier," template I created a month or so ago had an Int of 12 (that's baseline), and the, "Commisioned Officer," template I created had an Int of 13. Certainly high above the average human 8 Int.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

I believe the term you are looking for is 'the intuitive leap'.

 

Getting to the solution without having to go through all of the intermediate logical steps.

 

 

Doc

 

"Intuitive!" Yes; that was indeed the word I wanted. Thank you, Doc D.

 

Forgive my inability; I have a small memory problem with my vocabulary as a result of an accident a long time ago. Thanks!

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

[EDIT: For some reason, my quote of Shike above didn't come through. If this makes no sense, go up three posts and read his comments first]

 

I don't think that many folks would disagree with that;

 

If I understand correctly (and I hope I do, as I've been reading the whole thread with this bend) is that the topic under discussion is the 'default' of having a very high INT (or other Char) and the way it automatically gives you superiority in _all_ skills based on that Char, wether it makes sense within the concept or not.

 

Hmmm....

 

how many levels of Skill can I sell back?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

how many levels of Skill can I sell back?

Actually, that is a very good point (rep). The system kind of makes it impossible to have a very high Characteristic and still be rather average at a Skill based on that Characteristic. That's kind of wrong. I'm really starting to like my idea of the Characteristic bonus acting as a discount for a certain amount of Skill improvement.

 

EDIT: Heh. That sure sounded humble. Sorry 'bout that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Hrm.. damn that isa good point.

 

What we actually need is a way of buying a Skill without applying the CHAR, or applying the CHAR - our choice. Not one or the other.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

"Intuitive!" Yes; that was indeed the word I wanted. Thank you, Doc D.

 

Forgive my inability; I have a small memory problem with my vocabulary as a result of an accident a long time ago. Thanks!

 

 

One thing to be careful with in this area... to consider those more comfortable with making "intuitive leaps" as "more intelligent" than those who take a more detailed, step by step process to reach a conclusion... this is tenuous ground.

 

In certain psychological models there are benefits and weaknesses to both preferences. People do both... think systematically AND think intuitively. Some prefer/are more comfortable with one mode over the other. Both are necessary and healthy mental processes.

 

It is very common to think of the intuitive types as "more intelligent" and this is also reflected in certain models... I'm not saying right or wrong here... just that "intelligence" can mean so many things (especially if you start getting into things like Emotional Intelligence, etc.) that we are really going to get screwed up if we attempt to define INT in anything more than game terms.

 

To define it simply as "The key numerical factor for determining the number of skills your character can have" is purely a game mechanic definition... and no more or less "realistic" than "The key numerical factor for determining your base roll in certain skills."

[zornwil]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Well, it comes from me believing we've all got the same basic capacity for knowledge. How fast we learn something or pick up on things is a factor of 1) How much time we put into any given thing and 2) how easy it is for that given thing to sink in. Which is where I see INT.

 

I've never liked limiting the number of skills a person can/will learn - it rules out those with short attention spans (or Shiny Object Syndrome) going and learning a little about everything. Or those who choose a broad scpectrum of information over a small one.

 

I always have seen INT as how fast you pick up on things, if two people sit down and one is a fast learner and the other slow the fast learner will pick up and add to the knowledge must faster than the slow learner. But the slow learner will have to take more time and effort to gain the same level of understanding.

 

That's how I see it.

 

See, I read what you wrote as supporting RDU Neil's idea. "I have always seen INT as how fast you pick up on things..." - this is why higher INT = more skills, because each skill takes time to learn, so the faster you learn, the more skills you have. Using Neil's other idea of making extra skills still availlable but more expensive also addresses this.

 

Also, don't forget, you can buy up a skill. I'd take a general skill such as "KS - World History", then buy it up a bunch, so that the smaller-level details can still work at, say, -10 reasonably.

 

Personally, I like Doc Democracy's 3+(INT/3) idea, but I still might tend to do more like Sean with INT/2.

 

And taking it RDU Neil's way, I think you could justify bringing back those "uber-skills" such as "Detective Works", whether at higher or current values.

 

I also tend to think I'd apply it to the other areas as well. A lower PRE means you probably have less flexibility in how you apply it, to me.

 

It also opens up a good use for another char to boost the few skills you have economically, "No figured skills". Now my head hurts...

 

Anyway, great idea RDU Neil!

[zornwil]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Actually' date=' that is a very good point (rep). The system kind of makes it impossible to have a very high Characteristic and still be rather average at a Skill based on that Characteristic. That's kind of wrong. I'm really starting to like my idea of the Characteristic bonus acting as a [i']discount[/i] for a certain amount of Skill improvement.

 

EDIT: Heh. That sure sounded humble. Sorry 'bout that.

Well, I thought that in RDU Neil's system it wouldn't be "+CHAR/5" anymore. Although now I realize he didn't say that.

 

Okay, how about this:

 

(make the below INT instead if you like)

 

Skill Roll = 9+(Skill)

 

Max discounted skills in an area = 3+(BASE CHAR/3)

A discounted skill = +1 per 2 points, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

 

Any skills beyond discounted skill cost +1 per 4 points, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

 

A skill can be directly based on a char for a 5 point additional cost. In this case, the skill roll receives a bonus of (CHAR/5).

 

Something like that...

[RDU Neil]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Hrm.. damn that isa good point.

 

What we actually need is a way of buying a Skill without applying the CHAR, or applying the CHAR - our choice. Not one or the other.

 

Don't have 5ER... but isn't it still possible to choose how a skill exists... either as a Characteristic Based or Background, which is a flat cost?

 

I certainly remember that option in 4th Edition. Normally the choice was to make something into an INT based skill because it was higher value for less... but you could choose to buy all skills as Background skills... couldn't you?

 

Again... this is just late night memory speaking here.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Well, I thought that in RDU Neil's system it wouldn't be "+CHAR/5" anymore. Although now I realize he didn't say that.

 

Okay, how about this:

 

(make the below INT instead if you like)

 

Skill Roll = 9+(Skill)

 

Max discounted skills in an area = 3+(BASE CHAR/3)

A discounted skill = +1 per 1 point, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

 

Any skills beyond discounted skill cost +1 per 2 points, minimum 1 point expenditure to use.

 

A skill can be directly based on a char for a 3 point additional cost. In this case, the skill roll receives a bonus of (CHAR/5)

 

Something like that...

 

(WHOOPS HANG ON, EDITING)

 

 

Whoops... I thought I was more clear.

 

INT/3 (or /2, whatever) is the number of skills you get at as FLAT 11- roll. Buy it up from there at 3 per 2.

 

That was my idea anyway.

[zornwil]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

Whoops... I thought I was more clear.

 

INT/3 (or /2, whatever) is the number of skills you get at as FLAT 11- roll. Buy it up from there at 3 per 2.

 

That was my idea anyway.

Okay, good, it wasn't just my imagination.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

I see a ton of problems with this idea.

 

First, this is Hero System, not Shadowrun.

Second, this system does not fit well in Heroic Level games as it greatly restricts the number of skills a player would normally have.

 

Indiana Jones is a great example, CK, CuK, AK up the wazoo and he has to pay double cost for most of them? No. This is a very bad idea.

[zornwil]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

I see a ton of problems with this idea.

 

First, this is Hero System, not Shadowrun.

Second, this system does not fit well in Heroic Level games as it greatly restricts the number of skills a player would normally have.

 

Indiana Jones is a great example, CK, CuK, AK up the wazoo and he has to pay double cost for most of them? No. This is a very bad idea.

Indiana Jones isn't that INT-y?

 

Besides, how many INT-skills does he have? Detective Works, Archaeologist (which will give him the digs he's been on and the experiences as well as academic), and ... ? I mean, sure there's more, but if you think broadly fewer skills are required.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Radical Approach To Skills

 

See' date=' I read what you wrote as supporting RDU Neil's idea. "I have always seen INT as how fast you pick up on things..." - this is why higher INT = more skills, because each skill takes time to learn, so the faster you learn, the more skills you have. Using Neil's other idea of making extra skills still availlable but more expensive also addresses this.[/quote']

Well, I was trying to say that a high INT allows you to buy the same number of skills as a lower INT but at a better degree of understanding.

 

I can see where I was supporting RDU's statements though. I suppose I could be at some level - faster learners learn more skills to the same degree as slower learners in a set time frame.

 

I just don't like being told I can't learn more than X Number of skills. Unilimited capability is why I started playing HERO in the first place. If I want 35 different KSs then I should be able to get 35 different KSs, regardless of my INT level. but, YMMV, as usual.