Skills? How many points are normal?

[Questar]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

While I can't speak for Ghost-Angel (well' date=' OK, I [i']could[/i], but it wouldn't be right and he'd probably get upset with me ), I can say that in my experience, players that don't spend points on skills tend to make soley combat characters (even if poor ones) and don't tend to participate in the game when combat isn't happening. This can be very frustrating for the other players and GM when a mystery needs to be solved or interaction with NPCs needs to take place.

 

I've been guilty of this myself (early in my HERO career) and I noticed it when ONE player was a role player and the rest of us were combat wombats. I felt very bad for that one player, since the rest of us were being disrespectful to him and stressing him out because of our lack of participation. I've been a GM where I've only had two people roleplay and the others just wanted to roll-play. That's not fun in a mystery or in a scene where you need to bump ideas off of each other.

 

YMMV

 

Well, your account is interesting regarding having only ONE player who wanted to roleplay and the rest just basically wanting combat. That's a tough situation for a GM, because it makes it hard to balance any direction you go. But it seems to me that if most of your players want a heavy dose of combat, why not give it to them?

 

I also don't buy the idea that skills are necessarily more oriented toward "roleplay" than characteristics or powers. You're "I have a Life" skills seem to be referring to Background Skills, but as Ghost-Angel pointed out, that's a different discussion.

 

To me, the idea of requiring a certain percentage of character points to be spent on skills seems to need some justification. Some skills can be used in combat, particularly CSL's, while some powers and characteristics are really meant to be used outside of combat.

 

Every player is going to have a somewhat different goal, preference, etc. To some degree the GM has to try to balance these different desires to have an effective campaign. But there has to be some degree of tolerance on the part of all the players. If the combat wombat is bored during the sections when following up a clue or whatever, that can't be helped. There are some players who are bored unless they have the spotlight directly on their character at all times.

 

But it's really the bent of the player that will determine whether he/she gets involved in the non-combat aspects of the game. Someone who wants to roleplay will do it based upon their character concept, not based on the number of points they have in skills.

[Transit]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

Wow thanks for all the feedback! Sorry Im a bit new to the boards here. So generally it varries wildly among gamers but a general rule of thumb is about 10% of your total skill pts.

 

mine line up like so

3 deduction 13-

3 electronics 13-

3 paramedics 13-

3 stealth 13-

8 navigation:teleportation 16-

1 Transport familiarity:SMG

 

for my teleporter (megascale tp is Hard if you've never seen your target lol)

My GM is great over all (and if you ever get to tampa let me know) and im feeling uses backup skills a good bit for the more roleplaying aspects of the game. So i'll likely buy some knowledge skills as the game goes on

 

(with him being a fairly green hero to working with groups and solving anything beyond street crimes up to this point, give or take that one knockdown dragout fight with his hunted...)

 

Now one of the other mentioned in passing a list of skills like ks superhuman world... and super heroes and supervillians.. those I could see spending 9 pts on..because my gm would judge that as a character actually actively spending time in his off periods to keep up with that sort of thing and give youa chance to know your enemy or yoru friends.. or hav heard about the crowns of krim before they open up on you...but thats just us.

 

In any case thank you all greatly for your responses!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

I think most of my characters would be in line with your 10-20% requirement. But I have to admit that I don't understand why you would make such a requirement. Why do you feel that this is better? What purpose does it serve? Are you including such skills as lockpicking' date=' breakfall and combat skill levels? I just don't see any difference in a character buying these types of things or buying better characteristics or powers.[/quote']

 

no rule is set in shackles. Someone comes to me with a solid concept as to why they don't have a lot of skills and I'm flexible. But I like that to be the exception not the norm.

 

And also, It may not just be non-combat Skills.

 

Add in Perks, some Talents, and even a few Powers and I'm pretty happy.

 

I personally run very Skill Heavy (just as Bigdamnhero). But I've seen some Skill Light characters that are very well roleplayed. Even then they had about 15 points in skills. Not 0-6.

 

Usually I see 0-6 in people who's character concept is "I can make Dr. Destroyer cry for his mommy in 2 phases or less"

[Rapier]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

no rule is set in shackles. Someone comes to me with a solid concept as to why they don't have a lot of skills and I'm flexible. But I like that to be the exception not the norm.

 

And also, It may not just be non-combat Skills.

 

Add in Perks, some Talents, and even a few Powers and I'm pretty happy.

 

I personally run very Skill Heavy (just as Bigdamnhero). But I've seen some Skill Light characters that are very well roleplayed. Even then they had about 15 points in skills. Not 0-6.

 

Usually I see 0-6 in people who's character concept is "I can make Dr. Destroyer cry for his mommy in 2 phases or less"

 

I think it really comes down to the type of campaign you are playing and the characters you like to play. If you are in a campaign where you go from fight to fight to fight, you can get by with BreakFall and Acrobatics and be totally happy. I like a little more story in my campaign, and that requires out-of-combat action and that usually requires some skills.

[Vondy]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

no rule is set in shackles. Someone comes to me with a solid concept as to why they don't have a lot of skills and I'm flexible. But I like that to be the exception not the norm.

 

And also, It may not just be non-combat Skills.

 

Add in Perks, some Talents, and even a few Powers and I'm pretty happy.

 

 

Indolent heir and college drop-out with a big, convenient mansion and super-powers?

 

Wealth, Well Connected, Several Contacts, A Base With Trusty Butler... and few useful skills beyond everyman skills?

[Niles]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

My X-men game teenager would have been more powerfull starting with Breakfall and Teamwork than not needing to (or even being capable of) eat or sleep. But the life support brought out some interesting roleplaying the skills would not have, so I have no regrets on that score.

 

We did have a Combat Wombat that game, he had spent more points on skills than I did.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

Indolent heir and college drop-out with a big, convenient mansion and super-powers?

 

Wealth, Well Connected, Several Contacts, A Base With Trusty Butler... and few useful skills beyond everyman skills?

 

Sure. Why not.

 

 

Look - I like to see 10-20% in skills. When I run a Supers Game (an extremely rare occurance, as in only twice) I ask for that. I don't pin my players to the wall, put a gun to their head an say "17% or else!"

 

If they come to me with a Reason they have few skills and I like it. Ok. If they just hand me a sheet, it's got 0-6 pts in Skills I hand it back.

[assault]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

One idea I have considered is to systematically try to build characters who only ever need to spend their experience points on skills and perks, (and maybe the odd multipower slot). In other words, characters who have their full power sets and characteristics right from the beginning of a campaign, with subsequent growth only being a matter of refinement.

 

When doing this, of course, it becomes very tempting to cut back on starting skills, since these are precisely what is going to be bought "later".

 

I haven't quite gone over to the Dark Side on this, but I'm still tempted. The main thing that stops me is my tendency to build excessively complex characters who can never afford their whole power sets!

[Kirby]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

Teen heroes (an occasionaly child heroes) are a part of the genre.

I didn't mention anything about teen champions (which is its own subgenre) I mentioned 10 year-olds. You're deflecting the conversation to fit your needs. I may have missed it' date=' so if you can show me a ten year old hero somewhere in the Champions Universe (outside of [i']Teen Champions[/i] the subgenre book), I'd like to know the book and page number.

 

I also note the way you are repeatedly ignoring every mention of everyman heroes for whom it is out of concept to have more skills than a standard normal.

Really? "Every mention?" I don't think there's been "EVERY" mention of "everyman heroes," whatever those are. The closest I've found it this...

That Way lies ten year olds with a higher KS: comics skill than Alan Moore or Julie Schwartz. It's appropriate for some characters' date=' but it completly closes of anything remotely resembling an everyman style superhero.[/quote']...which wasn't addressed to me (in fact, the first quote is the first time you've quoted me, and I've only quoted you twice, (post 31 & 38) neither of which mention "everyman."

 

Though, you don't mention what an "everyman style superhero" is (probably because there is no good definition).

 

What I have seen is this:

For many Character Concepts 0-6 points is more than sufficient. Don't let anyone tell you any differently. Also remember your everyman skills.

Note however you've said "many" not "most" or "half," so 10 could be many, even though in CKC that would barely be 10%. Note that, once someone easily came up with a counterpoint (which better addressed the content) you posted...

I'm not trying to be a jerk here' date=' you did better than the most of the people on the old thread.[/quote']

You then went on with...

But... The chalenge was prompted by someone declaring that all characters needed at least 10 points of background skills of no obvious adventuring application.

[Emphasis mine] The emphasised part was another deflection on your part, as it was not included in anyone's post as a qualifier.

 

In the same post you stated...

I never wanted to claim nobody broad swaths of skills' date=' just that it wasn't nessecary for superheros to have broad swaths of skills.[/quote'] This, of course, was not your initial statement (see above for that) and nobody contested your new stance of "braod swaths of skills."

 

Being proven that the opposing viewpoint was more accurate wasn't good enough, so you modified your meaning with...

It's much harder if you assume the post-crisis superman.

...and...

People scratched around alot on every Hero they tried' date=' and I had to disqualify a number of skills as redundancies, exagerations (Ben Grimm plays cards for relaxation, but that doesn't mean he has the gambling skill.)[/quote'] So when it doesn't suit your preferences, you change them. Everyman skills are all skills at 8-. They're a set of skills, depending on genre, that a PC (or NPC) gets for free at 8-. Gambling isn't one for modern Champions, so if the player purchased 8- (Familiarity) for 1 point, you've nixed it because you don't like that it defeats your challenge. However, there's nothing (to my knowledge) saying Ben Grimm wouldn't have an 11- (Competent) or even 12 to 13- (skilled). Simply because he's not a professional poker player (with a 14+ roll) doesn't mean he can't have the skill.

 

And why shouldn't we assume a first issue aproach for starting characters?

This again is a deflection (or avoidance) or the original question. To respond to it; however' date=' why [i']should[/i] a first issue character be skill-less? (This seems to be what you're implying.) Most characters that have super powers have a job (the vast majority of which require skills). "Many" characters have in their background that they've already been fighting crime for at least a while (though not all do, I'd say more than 1/2 do) when they're introduced into the first scene of the campaign, so there's no reason to limit them to 6pts in skills and say that "is more than sufficient. Don't let anyone tell you any differently."

 

How many skills does Ronnie Raymond have really?

A blatantly vague question which you can easily modify once again to suit your needs. Is Ronnie a high school dropout or does he have a doctorate? Does he fry the fries or is he a CEO of a megacorporation? Chances are that if he has a college degree (or perhaps is even in college) he'll have more than 6 points in skills.

 

So, overall, it seems to me that "you are repeatedly" being antagonistic towards those that don't concur with your "0-6 points" philosopy and that you keep modifying your stance until you can "prove" your point.

 

And while it's a little bit off the mark, it seems to me that...

...your statement as an expression of pride in ignorance' date=' an attitude I detest.[/quote']...reflects you, not others.

 

This thread seems have a majority concurrance saying that it's quite reasonable for a starting character to have 15+ points in skills.

[Kirby]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

That's a tough situation for a GM' date=' because it makes it hard to balance any direction you go. But it seems to me that if most of your players want a heavy dose of combat, why not give it to them?[/quote']As I stated, I wasn't the GM on that one. On one hand, if any GM isn't having fun running a game because of the players, why should the GM continue to run it? On another, there's a reason we don't allow kids to have Recess, Art, and PE all day for school, simply because they'd enjoy that more. There's nothing wrong with trying to further develop players into better roleplayers, especially when none of them complain about the progress they made.

 

I also don't buy the idea that skills are necessarily more oriented toward "roleplay" than characteristics or powers. You're "I have a Life" skills seem to be referring to Background Skills' date=' but as Ghost-Angel pointed out, that's a different discussion.[/quote']That's a misassumption on your part. For the first sentence, Acting, Bribery, Bureaucratics, Conversation (dead ringer), Criminology, Gambling, High Society, KS/PS (Dancing for example), Oratory (dead ringer), Persuasion (dead ringer), Seduction, and Streetwise seem more oriented towards roleplaying than powers such as Abosrption, Armor, Damage Reduction, Flash, Force Field, HKA, RKA, Lack of Weakness, Running, TK, Transfer and Tunnelling seem to be.

 

For the second sentence, the "I have a life" skills are more than just background. They're also current, primarily the characters job, hobby(ies), and knoweldge. If a PC has an AK 13- Campaign City, that's hardly just "background."

 

To me' date=' the idea of requiring a certain percentage of character points to be spent on skills seems to need some justification. Some skills can be used in combat, particularly CSL's, while some powers and characteristics are really meant to be used outside of combat.[/quote']Ghost-Angel mentioned the percentage, not me. I like 25 points in noncombat skills in a 350 point game, which is a wee bit more than 7%. That's not too much to ask for.

 

If I run a game on HeroCentral, I have the luxury of requesting players who are willing to spend 25 points on noncombat skills. If someone wants to be in a game where skills aren't necessary, they have that luxury to create their own games.

 

Every player is going to have a somewhat different goal' date=' preference, etc. To some degree the GM has to try to balance these different desires to have an effective campaign. But there has to be some degree of tolerance on the part of all the players. If the combat wombat is bored during the sections when following up a clue or whatever, that can't be helped. There are some players who are bored unless they have the spotlight directly on their character at all times.[/quote'] This is pretty much a blanket statement, but doesn't really apply to the thread's question.

 

YMMV.

[assault]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

I think Kirby is being a bit harsh on Niles, although some of his points are valid.

 

And why shouldn't we assume a first issue aproach for starting characters?

 

This again is a deflection (or avoidance) or the original question. To respond to it; however, why should a first issue character be skill-less? (This seems to be what you're implying.)

 

I was the one who raised the "first issue" concept. This is where you model a character based on what they do during their first appearance, or at least their first few appearances.

 

It produces simpler characters, who, not coincidentally are often cheaper to model in the Hero System. The Barry Allen Flash is a good example. He isn't absurdly powerful during his first appearance, but the essential elements of the character are present.

 

Obivously "first issue" characters will exhibit fewer skills than they will later in their career. Furthermore, their backstories are often not fully developed until later in their careers as well. As such it's not obvious that it is reasonable for them to have skills related to those.

 

I personally prefer to merge the initial powers and the subsequent backstories when I am modelling characters. I also rarely follow retcons, but will if I think they make a better story. It's also pretty unheard of for me to actually use a direct copy of a published character. I always file off the serial numbers, even if I don't do so in a subtle manner.

 

How many skills does Ronnie Raymond have really?

 

A blatantly vague question which you can easily modify once again to suit your needs.

 

Ronnie Raymond is a specific character, so the question isn't at all vague.

 

Of course you could equally ask: "How many skills does Professor Stein have really?".

 

And then you could ask: "so how many skills does Firestorm have?".

[Kirby]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

I was the one who raised the "first issue" concept. This is where you model a character based on what they do during their first appearance' date=' or at least their first few appearances.[/quote']OK, you raised the concept, but why should that make a "first issue" character skill-less?

 

Comic characters can suddenly have new skills from their past come issue 25 because the writer is in charge. Champions characters generally can't go to their GM and say "OK, my character now has this needed skill because it's good for this part of the game, even though I never mentioned it in my background. By the way, can I have some XP to cover the cost?"

 

A background for a HERO PC (specifically Champions genre) is essentially the same as the "Who's Who" for DC, except DC Comics has the luxury of writing that "background" into the comic book. The players don't have that.

 

Ronnie Raymond is a specific character' date=' so the question isn't at all vague.[/quote'] Very well then. Who is he? Does he have a super alter ego so that those of us who don't know him could answer. I've pointed out that I haven't been involved in reading comics to different degrees for 5, 10, and 16 years. Without knowing who Ronnie Raymond is like me saying "I stopped watching Friends after season 3" and then being asked "What was so-and-so's profession?" who was introduced after season 3.

 

Ron Raymond could also be someone in a comic I didn't read, so better information would be needed. (For example: What skills would Billy Batson [child/teen alter ego of DC's Captain Marvel] have?)

[Kirby]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

Ronnie Raymond is a specific character, so the question isn't at all vague.

 

Of course you could equally ask: "How many skills does Professor Stein have really?".

 

And then you could ask: "so how many skills does Firestorm have?".

I'm going to guess that these three are referring to the same DC character Firestorm. It's been 16+ years since I've had a subscription to Firestorm, but I do recall one scientist and a high school or college kid being the two parts of him. If Ron Raymond is the hs/college kid, he wouldn't need many skills for the high school part, but could easily have more than 6 for college. The Professor/Scientiest would obviously be allowed more. And for one person playing Firestorm having two "normals" he would be able to combine his skill totals.

 

Though, if Raymond and Stein aren't the "normals" of Firestorm, then disregard, but hopefully you'll understand my point.

[assault]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

Though' date=' if Raymond and Stein aren't the "normals" of Firestorm, then disregard, but hopefully you'll understand my point.[/quote']

 

Yes, Raymond and Stein were the original "normals" of Firestorm. (I choose to ignore the subsequent mutilations of the character.)

 

When dealing with characters you know little or nothing about, Google is, of course, your friend. I have use it regularly, because my preference for "classic" material results in me being unfamiliar with a lot of recent continuity. Say, everything since you stopped reading comics.

 

I've just been more active in reading reprints.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

Meh, here's a decent skill set, early 20s, some college, high school diploma, hangs out with buddies, has fun on the weekends, workds at a garage:

 

PS: Mechanic (Everyman 0pts)

Mechanics (3pts)

Gambling: Cards (likes to vacation in Vegas; 2pts)

Paramedics (boss paid for first aid certification; 3pts)

KS: Cars (he can recognize most cars on site, base roll; 2pts)

AK: Vegas Hotels (he knows the good buffets; 2pts)

AK: Home City (he knows the streets better than average; 3pts)

Seduction (ladies man; 3pts)

 

That's 18 points in nothing but non-combat or "adventure" related skills. Start adding in some he learned as a Superhero and you can double that very quickly reaching a nice 36pts, or about 10% of a 350pt Superhero.

 

BTW; Everyman p69 Bobby Grey, 13yr old kid, managed to spend 9pts in Skills.

[MisterD]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

I have an incomplete character.

For skills I have Everyman skills +

 

12 points for MA or Multi-power

02 points for Work Related KS

02 points for Work related KS

02 points of Hobby KS

03 points for a background related Skill

03 points for a background related Skill

03 points for a background related Skill

03 points for a background related Skill

--------------------------------------

30 Points for skills (plus the everyman skills

 

Character has 100 more points to play with to be a 350 point character. When I find a focus for the character I can specify the skills

 

Anyone have ideas for generic skills to be specified later.

Like a frame work for characters.

[Questar]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

As I stated' date=' I wasn't the GM on that one. On one hand, if any GM isn't having fun running a game because of the players, why should the GM continue to run it? On another, there's a reason we don't allow kids to have Recess, Art, and PE all day for school, simply because they'd enjoy that more. There's nothing wrong with trying to further develop players into better roleplayers, especially when none of them complain about the progress they made.[/quote']

 

I know you weren't the GM, my comments were a general question of philosophy. If the GM isn't having fun, I don't see why he *should* continue to run a campaign. For me, the whole point is to have fun. I don't think your comparison of school to gaming is really apt, at least now how my group games. We view it as basically a time to have fun and enjoy getting together. As GM, I genuinely want my players to enjoy themselves. For best success, I have to have a sense of what they like. I don't feel any pressure to "develop" a player in any particular direction (except a newbie who needs some guidance in figuring out exactly what it's all about). The players themselves develop naturally on their own through interaction quite often, but just as often, they remain relatively constant.

 

Here's a simplified example: Player A loves to roleplay. Player B, seeing this, begins to get into the spirit of it and begins to enjoy doing the same. This "develops" as he keeps playing, but it's not something that I am doing as GM, it's his own choice. Player C enjoys the roleplay that goes on between the others, but never really enters in, because of a shy nature, or whatever. Player D likes the comraderie of being with friends and likes to smash bad guys, only really getting involved in the game during combat sequences.

 

I don't feel the slightest pressure to try to "develop" Player D or Player C. Their gameplay experience is what they make of it. I might occasionally give them opportunities to get into deeper roleplay if they want, but if they don't, it's not a concern to me, as long as they seem to continue to enjoy the gaming for whatever reasons of their own.

 

That's a misassumption on your part. For the first sentence, Acting, Bribery, Bureaucratics, Conversation (dead ringer), Criminology, Gambling, High Society, KS/PS (Dancing for example), Oratory (dead ringer), Persuasion (dead ringer), Seduction, and Streetwise seem more oriented towards roleplaying than powers such as Abosrption, Armor, Damage Reduction, Flash, Force Field, HKA, RKA, Lack of Weakness, Running, TK, Transfer and Tunnelling seem to be.

 

For the second sentence, the "I have a life" skills are more than just background. They're also current, primarily the characters job, hobby(ies), and knoweldge. If a PC has an AK 13- Campaign City, that's hardly just "background."

 

Well, we just have different semantics. I do refer to most such job, hobby, ks, ck and ak skills as "background skills". To me that doesn't mean they are not current, it just means they are skills the character has picked up outside of his heroic career. Others may use different terms, but I know that several do use the term "background skills" the same way I do.

 

The "talking" skills such as Conversation, Acting, Interrogation, Persuasion etc. do make good hooks for the GM to provide opportunities for roleplay. If that's your point, I think it's a good one. But then again, powers like Telepathy, Mind Scan, Mind Link and communication type powers can offer the same kinds of opportunities. Perks like "contact" can do the same.

 

But my larger point is that roleplaying occurs throughout the game and isn't dependant on whether you use skills or powers. One PC uses his concealment skill to search a room. Another uses super-speed or x-ray vision. Whatever method you use can be roleplayed equally well (or poorly).

 

Some of our best roleplaying sequences have come in the middle of combats. I say this because I get a sense that some people feel like the game is divided between "roleplaying" and "combat". You have not said that, but that is the implication I get from some of the remarks on this thread. The subtle suggestion seems to be that if you buy powers, you are a combat wombat, but if you buy skills you have developed into a roleplayer.

 

Ghost-Angel mentioned the percentage, not me. I like 25 points in noncombat skills in a 350 point game, which is a wee bit more than 7%. That's not too much to ask for.

 

The percentage was the main question of my post to Ghost-Angel, and the thrust of what I was talking about. I would have no problems at all creating characters with the guidelines either you or Ghost-Angel presented. I am not against skills, and use them freqently. My question isn't about a particular preference, though, or a particular percentage. The question is what is achieved by such a guideline ... in other words, it goes to the philosophy behind the guideline. Who gains by it? How is the game made better? To say, "that's just what I prefer" is certainly valid, but that ends the whole discussion. To be clearer, I ask the question because I suspect that the answer is that skills are felt to be associated with roleplay and powers are felt to be associated with combat. I may be wrong, so that's why I asked the question for clarification. I feel differently about that, for the reasons I've stated, and I wanted a chance to express my differing viewpoint.

 

Ghost-Angel's response to my question was something to the effect that he would be flexible, and listen to a player's reasoning for his concept. I thought it was a great response. But it didn't really dig into the question of skill vs powers, which is what I wanted to hear further discussion about.

 

 

If I run a game on HeroCentral, I have the luxury of requesting players who are willing to spend 25 points on noncombat skills. If someone wants to be in a game where skills aren't necessary, they have that luxury to create their own games.

 

This is pretty much a blanket statement, but doesn't really apply to the thread's question.

 

YMMV.

 

That last sentence of yours could very well apply to your own previous paragraph and to many other comments by the posters on this thread.

[Victim]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

Meh, here's a decent skill set, early 20s, some college, high school diploma, hangs out with buddies, has fun on the weekends, workds at a garage:

 

PS: Mechanic (Everyman 0pts)

Mechanics (3pts)

Gambling: Cards (likes to vacation in Vegas; 2pts)

Paramedics (boss paid for first aid certification; 3pts)

KS: Cars (he can recognize most cars on site, base roll; 2pts)

AK: Vegas Hotels (he knows the good buffets; 2pts)

AK: Home City (he knows the streets better than average; 3pts)

Seduction (ladies man; 3pts)

 

That's 18 points in nothing but non-combat or "adventure" related skills. Start adding in some he learned as a Superhero and you can double that very quickly reaching a nice 36pts, or about 10% of a 350pt Superhero.

 

BTW; Everyman p69 Bobby Grey, 13yr old kid, managed to spend 9pts in Skills.

 

You could certainly justify spending that many points on skills. On the other hand, I don't really think that the given concept demands that many skill points either. Couldn't PS: Auto-mechanic be enough, especially since it doesn't seem like he's qualified to make extensive modifications to machines in general? Is a first aid certification really justification for a full stat based roll on Paramedics? And then there's the hobby skills. I'm not of the opinion that every single thing a character does or knows merits a skill. Sure, this hypothetical guy has some familarity with Vegas from his vacations there. But how much of an advantage does he really have over someone who's just checking out the hotels online? The mechanical difference between possessing a skill and not having it is rather vast (40% at the lowest versus 0).

 

Infinite skill proliferation is an easy way to run up the cost of characters. You just spent 18 points on basically a standard normal (0 points) without getting into stats and such. It's very easy to spend points on skills if that's what your setting out to do, but that doesn't really mean that it's always going to be warranted.

 

Of course, by the same token, it's also pretty easy to justify not spending points on skills.

[Niles]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

Of course you could equally ask: "How many skills does Professor Stein have really?".

Professor Stein is probably best modeled as a computer.

[Shike019]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

All of this discussion is interesting. I say this because, going through my memory, I figure I had 21 pts in Background skills and at least 1 perk by the time I graduated Highschool. This plus most martial maneuvers from the Soo Bahk Do Style (Tang Soo Do from UMA) and possibly a HTH CSL. Probably others as well, including some 1 pt languages and CuK familiarities. and a couple of others.

 

AK: Marquette, MI 11- 2 pts.

KS: Soo Bahk Do 11- 2 pts.

KS: Boy Scouts 11- 2 pts.

PS: Saxophone 11- 2 pts.

PS: Trombone 8- 1 pt.

PS: Baritone 8- 1 pt.

PS: Tuba 8- 1 pt.

PS: Clarinet 8- 1 pt.

PS: Oboe 8- 1 pt.

PS: Piano 8- 1 pt.

KS: Jazz Music 8- 1 pt.

PS: Skiing 11- 2 pts.

PS: Soccer 11- 2 pts.

Survival: Temperate/Subtropical Forests 11- 2 pts

 

Perk: Eagle Scout 1 pt.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

You have not said that' date=' but that is the implication I get from some of the remarks on this thread. The subtle suggestion seems to be that if you buy powers, you are a combat wombat, but if you buy skills you have developed into a roleplayer.[/quote']

 

I think you are probably seeing something that is not quite there.

 

You can be a god awful roleplayer regardless of if you spend 0 or 100+ pts on skills. And the inverse is also true, as you can be a great rolplayer with a character that may not have any skills at all.

 

The number of skills you have has nothing to do with the quality of your roleplaying. In fact many players realize that they are better off with a high skill roll because they cannot ever manage to pull of the character without it This is especially true of social skills and things like deduction.

 

Some players can put most of the pieces together on their own and only need the skill for completeness sake, so that they are not being out of character when they convince Dr Destroyer to help cure cancer. They do all of their Conversation, Persuasion and Seduction with pure roleplay.

 

Other players desperatly need that Oratory 20- because they want to play Captain America but have all the charisma of a rock in real life. I have a very good friend like this. You and I might dream of flying or throwing buildings as super powers. He thinks it would be awsome to just be super suave. Both equally valid forms of escapism...

 

So again, Skills are not some mystical mark of good roleplaying. Sometimes they are even a crutch for bad rolplaying or a sign of truly horrific character design.

 

Also, t sure seems like some folks are looking for absolutes when just about everyoen on this thread seems to be saying "It varies from character to character, game to game, player to player and GM to GM. But here's a rough guideline that I use when I'm designing characters or approving characters for games I GM."

[Questar]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

I think you are probably seeing something that is not quite there.

 

Possibly not, hence my question of *why* you would create a guideline that a character should have X amount or percentage of skills. Ghost-Angel said something to the effect that a character who spends all the points on powers often has a character concept that is to make Doctor D cry for mommy in a couple of phases. That sounds like a "combat wombat" that others have talked about. Others have made similar comments. The implication is that if you as GM force that player to take skills instead of powers, this will help counter the player's tendencies.

 

You can be a god awful roleplayer regardless of if you spend 0 or 100+ pts on skills. And the inverse is also true, as you can be a great rolplayer with a character that may not have any skills at all.

 

Well, that's exactly the point I'm making.

 

The number of skills you have has nothing to do with the quality of your roleplaying. In fact many players realize that they are better off with a high skill roll because they cannot ever manage to pull of the character without it This is especially true of social skills and things like deduction.

 

Some players can put most of the pieces together on their own and only need the skill for completeness sake, so that they are not being out of character when they convince Dr Destroyer to help cure cancer. They do all of their Conversation, Persuasion and Seduction with pure roleplay.

 

Other players desperatly need that Oratory 20- because they want to play Captain America but have all the charisma of a rock in real life. I have a very good friend like this. You and I might dream of flying or throwing buildings as super powers. He thinks it would be awsome to just be super suave. Both equally valid forms of escapism...

 

So again, Skills are not some mystical mark of good roleplaying. Sometimes they are even a crutch for bad rolplaying or a sign of truly horrific character design.

 

Also, t sure seems like some folks are looking for absolutes when just about everyoen on this thread seems to be saying "It varies from character to character, game to game, player to player and GM to GM. But here's a rough guideline that I use when I'm designing characters or approving characters for games I GM."

 

I like your example and it brings up some interesting points that I'd like to discuss further, but I'll have to wait until later. Real life calls at the moment...

[Markdoc]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

There's nothing wrong with trying to further develop players into better roleplayers' date=' especially when none of them complain about the progress they made.[/quote']

 

This is the key point for me. There's this assumption that "more skills = better roleplaying".

 

I must confess, after many years of GM'ing and playing, the connection is still not obvious to me. I've seen badly-roleplayed characters with lots of skills and well-roleplayed combat monsters - Mike Surbrook can attest to that: look at his Kazei 5 site and you'll find masses of immersion and out of combat roleplaying (we spent way more time on that than combat, if memory serves correctly). My character - with about 25 points of non-combat skills - was the party's "skill monster" (at least initially).

 

You don't need PS: Farmer and AK:Smallville to roleplay "I'm from a small town in Kansas".

 

Frankly, I've *never* considered how many points a player's character had invested in skills (or in powers, for that matter) when I look it over. I simply ask myself if it will fit into the game I have planned and if it has a coherent background. The skillset should match the background and character concept. That's it. 0 points or 50 points is up the player. Now personally I *prefer* that players have a decent skillset and design games to encourage it. I try and slip parts in where a player's "unusual" skill plays a role. But roleplaying manifests in many ways other than slapping skills down on a sheet "because you should".

 

cheers, Mark

[Bloodstone]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

You don't need PS: Farmer and AK:Smallville to roleplay "I'm from a small town in Kansas".

 

Oi, I'm rushing here and so this may not come out very well but...

 

If you did not have those skills I would assume you had no real interest in exploring that aspect of the character. Ever. Or that if you did, you expected to be just as clueless about Smallville as Diana and Bruce, which probably wouldn't make much sense unless Smallville had Changed a lot since you've been gone.

 

By contrast if you spend points on AK: Smallville, this tells me you have at least a passing interest in having an adventure back home so that you can tell all your friends about who makes the best quilts and cooks the best pies and so forth. I, as a GM , would want to make that skills usefull at some point, if not completly pivitol.

 

The same can be applied to most any point expenditure in the game. I assume if you spent points on it you want to use it. If you have no intention of using it then don't spend points on it.

 

To give an example, lacking any B&E type skills tells me the player probably isn't expecting to use that modus operandi to advance the plot. If I force him into a situation wher he must do so to progress, I have to expect him to fail OR I have provide him with an alternate way to succeede. That alternative might be an NPC or a workaround that involves the skills and powers he does have. If I don't give the player a workaround, I'm probably better off avoiding the situation entierly.

 

Skills, for me, mainly offer a wider arrays of challenges that I can throw up against the characters and have them succeede at.

 

Sometimes powers may offer similar or greater versatility then skills. I'm not denying that at all and I have been in plenty of games where powers eclipsed skill use several times over.

 

But I've never seen somone solve a detective mystery with a 12d6 AP Energy Blast. And when you can't fly, teleport or throw the bomb far enough away to save the entire eastern seaboard, you damn well better hope you have somone on the team that has Demolitions... or a powered equivelent that probably cost 10 times as many character points

[Bloodstone]

Re: Skills? How many points are normal?

 

and now that I'm home and have a few more minutes, I will address a secondary aspect which is fleshing out a background and giving the character something to do when he's out of costume. The "Get a Life" aspect so to speak...

 

Lets look at the X-Men for a moment...

 

Nightcrawler is a religious ladies man and former acrobat traped in a demonic looking body. Banshee is a former secret agent. Wolverine is a beer swilling Canadain ninja biker. Angel is a buisnessman, heir and socialite. Beast is a scientist, poet and former football star.

 

And then there is Cyclops. Cyclops is a character with almost no skills or intrests outside of combat. He leads the X-men, uses his mutant power and does judo. About the only other things we see him do are pine for Jean Gray (and once he has her, date her and go shoping and such) and play pool. And he only plays pool because his skills at "spatial geometry" makes him really damn good at it. And even his dates and outing to play pool inevitably come down to combat

 

In any event, all the other characters have SOME liffe outside of being a X-men. They have a civilian ID, hobbies and interests. And they have a few non combat skills as a result.

 

By contrast, Scott Summers doesen't even exist except in name. There is only Cyclops. The X-men are his life, always have been and ultimatly always will be. He's quite possibly the only team leader I've ever seen that gets treated like a sidekick and tagalong.

 

In any event, this is not to say Cyclops is an invalid character concept. But most people I know consider Cyclops to be a prety booring character. And I think many GM's would have the same problems with Cyclops as many Marvel writers have. He's just not that interesting and lacks a life ioutside of the X-men and Jean, so they don't know what to do with him. And mind you, this is coming from somone that is rather fond of Slim and and frequently defends him on these boards and others.

 

But I gotta call a spade a spade