Shtick!

[Vondy]

Alright. We're here to talk about Shtick!

 

The Rant

 

This is a Custom Talent that's been in play in my games for a while. It was the result of a long-time style issue: skill intensive heroic games that often saw characters weigh in with 100+ points in skills. Experienced characters sometimes weighed in with twice that. Generally, the cost isn't the issue I encountered, but when I audited these characters I noticed that it was generally the product of trying to simulate cinematic expertise. i.e., the superhero gadgeteer or scientist built with a score of skills, the bookworm mage with an equally long list of obscure knowledge skills, the mega-vamp with every interaction skill in the book and supporting background skills, etc.

 

And, as I thought about it, building a character with a broad cinematic shtick can be prohibitively expensive and leave you wondering: what didn't I cover that might come up? Now, my heroic games tend to have some gritty to dark themes, and I like granularity, but at their heart they are the stage for competent characters with a concentrated cinematic shtick. Even my freedom patrol game, which sits in the twilight between superheroic and cinematic pulp action, the characters are essentially highly competent with a concentrated FX power-set.

 

It was there I really started to notice the difference. The skill based characters almost always weighed in a huge chunk of points higher than the supers while being no more (or less) effective when taken as a whole. They generally had to work harder and leverage the rules more to keep up in combat, while having more breadth out of combat. All things being equal, it seemed like they should weigh in at around the same cost. Cost and a list of a gazillion skills was one reason players cited for not wanting to play characters they would otherwise be interested in.

 

This does NOT fit all genres or play-styles. I would use it in some games, but not others.

 

Anyways, what this rant is getting to is the emergence of Shtick!

 

Shtick!

 

Shtick is a stop sign talent and requires GM approval. The scope of the shtick is defined by defining a word or phrase punctuated with an exclamation point. It must have an exclamation point. Mechanically, it doesn't work without an exclamation point!

 

That said, Shtick! replaces all skills that fall under its defined (agreed upon) purview. Shtick! has three categories:

 

1. Expertise Shtick!
   
2. Competence Shtick!
   
3. Combat Shtick!
   

 

Expertise Shtick!

 

Expertise oriented shtick represents a character whose shtick normally rests in what the hero system currently defines as background skills. They may make use of a small number or regular skills such as Research, Instruction, or Inventor, but in general, the character generally leverages background skills with it. Some examples would be Tony Stark, Reed Richards, Dr. Destroyer, and their like. They seem able to analyse just about anything. The Shtick! could be defined as Science! or Weird Science! or Amazing Inventions! or whatnot. Another would be a fantasy character with Bookworm! or Sage! Or, a Hoshi Sato from Enterprise might be built as Linguist!

 

Competence Shtick!

 

Competence Shtick! represents a character whose shtick primarily leverages adventuring skills, but is occassionally supported by background skills. For instance, this could be "Creepy Bald Death Brother Dude!" or "Vamp!" or "Thief!"

 

Combat Shtick!

 

Warning:

this is something a GM needs to think long and hard about before allowing it into the game. Also, its primarily intended for use with an MoS driven skill based combat system as opposed to the Combat Value driven system normally in place. It was used in my fantasy game, but I haven't used it in other games as I've used the normal Combat Value system. There is no reason, however, it could not be used with martial arts, weapon familiarities, related skills, and skill levels.

 

Combat Shtick! represents characters with amazing combat abilities like Kung Fu! or Eight Circle Style! or Weapon Master! or Gunslinger! In normal hero, it could be used to make use of any maneuver that falls within the characters fighting art, leverage related skills (see the skills noted in various martial arts descriptions of UMA) or related background skills (SS: Martial Art, etc), or make use of any weapon without penalties, etc. For regular hero combat you would want to allow each +1 attached to the shtick to function as 5 points worth of combat skill levels or +1 to the base 11- skill roll for skills. For an MoS driven system the character uses the Shtick! roll for their skill rolls.

 

Shtick! Cost

 

Shtick! costs 20 points for an 11- roll.

--Expertise oriented Shtick! costs 2 points per +1 to the base roll.

--Competence oriented Shtick! costs 3 points per +1 to the base roll.

--Combat Shtick! costs 5 points per +1 to the base roll.

 

Alternate Cost Shema:

 

Another way to cost it is to have skills use the 9+(Characteristic/5) formula and charge for each +1 to whatever base skill roll comes up. This, however, tends to make Shtick! cheaper. In of itself that is neither good nor bad. Its something you have to guage for the game and points available.

 

Skill Maxima:

 

Ordinarily Shtick! should not be subject to Skill Maxima. However, I think it would be prudent for characters with more than one Shtick! (if you were to allow that at all) to only have one Shtick! ignore the maxima. You could, of course, impose the maxima on shtick as well (this would break the combat shtick schema unless you use a skill driven combat system - just so you know).

 

Examples

 

Here are three examples that were used in my fantasy game (2 competence driven; 1 combat driven). All of these characters had other non-Shtick skills purchased normally:

 

Shtick: Companion! 18- (Cost 41 Points)

 

Expected uses: Acting, Body Language, Carousing, Dance, Grooming, Human Perception, Lovecraft, Makeup, Maven, Persuasion, Poetry, Seduction, Sex Appeal, Sing, Sway Emotion; relevant background skills as needed.

 

Eight Circle Style! 18- (Cost 55 Points)

 

(MoS driven)

 

Expected uses: Analyze Style, Balance, Blind Fighting, Break Fall, Breaking Blow, Breath Control, Death Blow, Evasion, Eight Circle Style, Immovable Stance, Kiaia, Leaping Attack, Melee Weapons, Parry Missile Weapons, Pressure Points, Rapid Attack; a narrow array of relevant background skills.

 

Creepy Death Brother Dude! 18- (Cost 41 Points)

 

(this incl. skill based magic)

 

Alchemy, Anatomy-Physiology, Astrology, Astronomy, Autohypnosis, Body Control, Breath Control, Botany, Dreaming, Dream Walking, Exorcism, Esoteric Medicine, Hidden Lore, Hypnotism, Meditation, Occultism, Pharmacology, Ritual Magic, Symbol Drawing, Thaumatology, Toxicology, Zombification; relevant backround skills as needed.

[Kenn]

Re: Shtick!

 

Hmm. This sounds interesting. I'm going to cut and paste your description, add some campaign-specific details and run it past my group.

[Vondy]

Re: Shtick!

 

Let me know how it works for you.

[dsatow]

Re: Shtick!

 

Sounds heavily abuse-able but what the hell. It's a nice concept for an in-house campaign where the GM can moderate it. It's a scary idea for a GM getting a character from someone else's campaign to their own or who is running the game at a convention.

 

I personally would probably allow a single schtick per character so as to not unbalance things, and in a way I agree/disagree about skill twids (as we call them where I GM) effectiveness in a campaign. While skill twids do have a tough time in combat, they usually outshine others in role-playing problems.

 

Before I proceed, I do think its a usable concept if you are comfortable with your players and know how they play and control their experiences and actions. In a round robin GM group, this might be problematic if one GM allows one set of skills and another doesn't.

 

However, I assume you need a devils advocate here, so...

 

1) What to prevent a schtick from being used abusively? World's greatest detective could be cool like Batman or kill mystery campaigns out of the water. How about World's Greatest Scientist? A plague threatens the city, WGS comes to the rescue. Villain about to blow up the world, WGS deactivates the bomb. Aliens threaten the earth, WGS comes up with the ultimate weapon. etc.

2) How about multiple schticks? I am WGS, World's Greatest Detective, Sorcerer Supreme, etc. Any problem beside combat, I am your man!

3) What if your view on the schtick and their view don't match? Vamp might be interpreted as sexual predator. Vamp might be interpreted as Goth Girl. vamp might be interpreted as a real Vampire. Seduction may be in all these schticks, but in one version may not have a social retribution skill which a sexual predator vamp might have.

[Vondy]

Re: Shtick!

 

Thanks for your comments!

 

Sounds heavily abuse-able but what the hell. It's a nice concept for an in-house campaign where the GM can moderate it. It's a scary idea for a GM getting a character from someone else's campaign to their own or who is running the game at a convention.

 

This is why I made it "stop sign." I was aware, based on long-experience, of the potential downside. That never materialized, however, because of the factors I mention below.

 

I personally would probably allow a single schtick per character so as to not unbalance things' date=' and in a way I agree/disagree about skill twids (as we call them where I GM) effectiveness in a campaign. While skill twids do have a tough time in combat, they usually outshine others in role-playing problems.[/quote']

 

This has been my application of the rule: one shtick per character, and shtick must be unique. Otherwise its not "shtick." There can be a small amount of shtick overlap insofar as everyone agrees, but in general it should be avoided. We have one exception to the rule, but the character in question is a very long running PC and 1) their shticks were reverse engineered off of what the character could already do, 2) the "saved points" just dissappeared - they didn't get to spend them elsewhere, and 3) the player is a mentsch about stage-time.

 

Before I proceed' date=' I do think its a usable concept if you are comfortable with your players and know how they play and control their experiences and actions. In a round robin GM group, this might be problematic if one GM allows one set of skills and another doesn't.[/quote']

 

My group played together for almost fifteen years with a solid core of regulars [and now its just that solid core doing sporadic messenger games]. As such, I was comfortable with them, and trusted them. We did have an occassional on-off run by another player, but it never proved to be a problem. This is because shtick was something discussed in advance, including the expected scope.

 

However' date=' I assume you need a devils advocate here, so...[/quote']

 

It was used in game for the last three years I lived in the states. But, devil's advocates are always welcome.

 

1) What to prevent a schtick from being used abusively? World's greatest detective could be cool like Batman or kill mystery campaigns out of the water. How about World's Greatest Scientist? A plague threatens the city' date=' WGS comes to the rescue. Villain about to blow up the world, WGS deactivates the bomb. Aliens threaten the earth, WGS comes up with the ultimate weapon. etc.[/quote']

 

The answer to all three of these questions is communication. I've almost never allowed a character into my game that wasn't discussed in general before I audited the sheet, and in detail after I got my hands on it. As a result, I've always had a chance to figure out what the player is shooting for and discuss needed tweaks or further concept definition before play begins.

 

First, the player and GM agree upon the definition of the shtick, expected scope of skills, and scenario applicability in advance - as well as the roll. It has to be genre appropriate.

 

Second, it has a roll and itsn't automatic; and you can still apply modifiers for truly bizarre or obscure uses (thoough my further comments will illustrate why I generally don't do this). And, skill use takes time. To analyze clues and scientific data isn't generally a one-phase action.

 

Third, what kind of yokel designs a scenario that doesn't take the characters' abilities into account?

 

Example: If you have "the worlds greatest detective" in your game you need a chain of clues, not just one. Its expected batman will collect bizarre and obscure clues building a chain with his amazing encycolpedic knowledge that takes him to the mystery's final end. The fact that the character has access to a gazillion knowledge skills and a few regular skills just simulates that - I don't see how it serves as a plot buster. There's no obligation to allow constant deduction rolls - in which case deduction alone would be a plot buster - and you can still let the players piece it together. And the Bat is usually operating solo. He needs that breadth. In terms of when he's with a group: not every situation the JLA encounters is solved by deduction. His skills may uncover clues, but the scenario will demand the other character's use their abilities to solve the problem as well.

 

Example: Reed Richards is expected to use his scientific skills to do exactly what you are concerened the world's greatest scientist will do. If you don't want that, don't allow the world's greatest scientist into your game. Also, just because someone is the world's greatest scientist doesn't mean 1) the plot will allow them time to fix the problem (if its not a "science saves the day" plot), 2) that scientist has the technical resources to apply their great skill to the particuliar problem at hand - and may have to leverage other characters or perks to get them, or 3) has all the pieces they need at the beginning of the scenario to come up with a scientific solution.

 

If you have a science saves the day or amazing feats of deduction scenario it doesn't have to be a one roll gimme. There can be several things that have to happen, be acquired, or be investigated before the character uses their shtick to fix the problem. And not every problem will be fixed by a given shtick.

 

As for the world's greatest scientist disarming a bomb (which is really a question of scope): demolitions is a technical discipline. Its not just chemistry, physics, and electronics. So the GM would be entitled to state "out of scope" when the shtick was being discussed - especially if another character had a shtick that clearly included it. Or do so in the middle of the game.

 

However, let's go back to Reed Richards for a second. If you've thrown a ticking bomb at the fantastic four, can anyone else disarm it? No. And with that group of heroes Reed's your boy. It was thrown at him. You can throw something at the other characters in other scenes. And, if the scenario demads the bomb go off you can have the time frame from discovery be too short to disarm it, or the design be such that you would need a specialized skill, tools, or the arming code to turn it off.

 

Sue: "Can't you hack the arming code?"

Reed: "Well, sure, given a few hours, a specialized interface, and an algori..."

Ben: "Uh, Reed, it says 20 seconds, no wait 19..."

Reed: "Right. New plan. Johnny, its an incendiary devide. Use your fire powers to..."

 

Something else to consider is that, contrary to popular belief, not all bombs can be disarmed. Some of them can only be detonated.

 

And, as for creating the ultimate weapon - thats a POWER. Does he have the ULTIMATE GADGET POOL to build that weapon with? Shtick only does skills and skill-like abilities with permission. It DOES NOT do powers.

 

I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of scenario design and how skills work. For me, shticks (and skills in general) are a game-master's tool as much as it is a player tool. I can use it to drive plots, and to ensure the character shines at some point.

 

2) How about multiple schticks? I am WGS' date=' World's Greatest Detective, Sorcerer Supreme, etc. Any problem beside combat, I am your man![/quote']

 

As noted in my initial post, its generally best if characters only have one shtick. And I add here: those shticks should be unique with minimal overalp. You want the characters to have a place where they shine. This is why there is a stop sign on it. The Gamemaster has the ever-loving power of "no." Also, even our one character who has multiple shticks has them fairly narrowly concentrated. He has Commando! and Master Spy!

 

3) What if your view on the schtick and their view don't match? Vamp might be interpreted as sexual predator. Vamp might be interpreted as Goth Girl. vamp might be interpreted as a real Vampire. Seduction may be in all these schticks' date=' but in one version may not have a social retribution skill which a sexual predator vamp might have.[/quote']

 

I see this as a non-issue. You talk about it before play beings. You never allow a character into a game you don't understand. Communication is a part of the maturity required to make games work. And, to be frank, I think you picked a weird word to harp on. I can see the last one - that maybe they took vamp to mean vampire - in a setting that has vampires. But the other two? Has usage and literacy degradaded that much? Both are well out of the norm in terms of common usage, and I don't think there is an obligation to accept niche usages as defacto interpretations. And, to avoid such amazing displaces of niche jargon, you talk about it. I have harped on this much overlooked game-critical skill on the boards for years: communication, communication, communication. Its a salve for most issues. That said: if you want Goth Girl write it down (and we really need to discuss what that is percieved to entail), and if you want Sexual Predator leave my game this instant!

[MorpheousXO]

Re: Shtick!

 

Ooh, I am so yoinking this one, this helps with some of the skills bloat I've worried about. Repped!

 

::edit::

 

or rather I would rep you if I could, I owe you rep!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Shtick!

 

We've used the concept of schtick in our campaign for 15 years now, though not as formalized. Rather than using caps, we go for schtick protection. We have a "World's Most Agile Human" so nobody else gets a competitive DEX. We have a "Nobel Prize Winning Physicist" so nobody else gets the same level of INT and Science Skills. Our "Big Blue Ninja" doesn't have to worry about others being as good at breaking and entering or sneak attacks. The brick doesn't have to worry about another character being as strong or as tough.

 

If a character wants to pick up a new Skill or Power which may possibly overlap or infringe on another's schtick, then he first discusses it with the other's player to ensure there is no problem. (When I had my MA decide to pick up Stealth, I first asked our ninja's player if that was OK with him; and also assured him that my character would not buy Security Systems, Lockpicking, or other associated Skills the ninja possessed. For my MA, Stealth means she can move quietly and unseen - period.)

[Vondy]

Re: Shtick!

 

We've used the concept of schtick in our campaign for 15 years now' date=' though not as formalized. Rather than using caps, we go for [i']schtick[/i] protection. We have a "World's Most Agile Human" so nobody else gets a competitive DEX. We have a "Nobel Prize Winning Physicist" so nobody else gets the same level of INT and Science Skills. Our "Big Blue Ninja" doesn't have to worry about others being as good at breaking and entering or sneak attacks. The brick doesn't have to worry about another character being as strong or as tough.

 

If a character wants to pick up a new Skill or Power which may possibly overlap or infringe on another's schtick, then he first discusses it with the other's player to ensure there is no problem. (When I had my MA decide to pick up Stealth, I first asked our ninja's player if that was OK with him; and also assured him that my character would not buy Security Systems, Lockpicking, or other associated Skills the ninja possessed. For my MA, Stealth means she can move quietly and unseen - period.)

 

We've done "niche protection" much the same way you descibe going back a dozen years or so. Skill niches weren't as big an issue as characteristic and power niches (in the freedom patrol game, at least), but it did come up now and again. This was actually first used in a fantasy game where we notived a group of long running characters had large amounts of points sunk into skill niches. I like well rounded characters and lots of granularity, but the laundry-list method seemed to leave something to desire in terms of accounting, character sheet space, and elegant design. It worked well enough that we ported it into the Freedom Patrol game as well. I did include niche protection in my implementation, but it was really about simplifying how one builds cinematic shtick - and shortening the character sheet. I like tidy records and elegant builds. Its the lazy man in me.

[Markdoc]

Re: Shtick!

 

I haven't formulated things quite so neatly, but I also tend to run skill/non-combat heavy games and have been using the idea of "shticks" for a long time. We even call them that, inspired by the Feng Shui game

 

The way I do it is that combat shticks are simply "combat talents" - powers bought with the special effect of being amazing skills. Examples are things like amazing climbing (clinging) and stealth (invisibility) for the thief shtick, or autofire or area effect HKA or HA for martial arts shticks, dice of healing for the gifted healer shtick. These are expensive enough that most PCs who have one, end up with 1 such shtick, and few if any get more than 3 (since you can't add your shtick to free equipment: a shtick by definition is personal). If the shtick is very cohesive, they can even put these powers into a framework (this replaces martial arts in my games, since a school of martial arts is by definition a "cohesive set of powers")

 

For skills, I am simply generous with their effects. For "Creepy Death Brother Dude", Necromancer 18- is going to cover the bases pretty well. If the player comes across a forbidden tome of Pelnish Lore, then even if he doesn't have KS: Pelnish lore, I might say "That's pretty damn obscure - make a roll at -6 to know anything about it" or "This has been a jealously-guarded secret through the ages: it's virtually impossible to find out about - roll necromancy at -10". The same applies to sages or scientists: "Obscure lore, 18-" or "Superscience, 18-" covers a lot of bases, though if you want really obscure lore, or work with a lot of really strange alien technology, going higher might help (or buy appropriate complementaries). Again, based on experience, players tend to buy their core competency up high (we have at least one PC in the current game with skills at 18- and most have at least one skill in the 16-17- range), and then add a smattering of commonly-used complementary skills. The end result is experienced heroic level characters will often have 50+ points sunk into skills (not counting CSLs) but that will be 20-30% of their total cost.

 

Last of all, I have long used a rule now often known as "Let it ride" or "He's fucken Tarzan, dude!" which is that skill rolls are for important situations. In a recent adventure, to take an example, Aquila (Stealth 18-, Concealment 16-) was sneaking into an enemy castle. At various intervals, I rolled dice behind my shield (so as not to tell the player when he was approaching something dangerous) and happily ignored them, simply giving the player a description of guards dodged, statues hidden behind and so on. Basically, under normal circumstances (and for Aquila, sneaking around an unknown castle in dead of night is normal circumstances) he's not going to stumble over things or make a huge racket. He was happy, since as far as he could tell he was being supremely stealthy, and benefitting from those points sunk into stealth (which I guess he was, in a way) and it let me get on with the game.

 

cheers, Mark

[Trebuchet]

Re: Shtick!

 

Last of all' date=' I have long used a rule now often known as "Let it ride" or "He's fucken Tarzan, dude!" which is that skill rolls are for important situations. In a recent adventure, to take an example, Aquila (Stealth 18-, Concealment 16-) was sneaking into an enemy castle. At various intervals, I rolled dice behind my shield (so as not to tell the player when he was approaching something dangerous) and happily ignored them, simply giving the player a description of guards dodged, statues hidden behind and so on. Basically, under normal circumstances (and for Aquila, sneaking around an unknown castle in dead of night [i']is[/i] normal circumstances) he's not going to stumble over things or make a huge racket. He was happy, since as far as he could tell he was being supremely stealthy, and benefitting from those points sunk into stealth (which I guess he was, in a way) and it let me get on with the game.

We use a similar approach in our campaign. It's always fun for a player when his character's schtick shows up in a game. One of my favorites was when I was GMing an attempted Neo-Nazi coup in Vienna, and the Nazis were using mechs as their heavy firepower. The largest mech and our brick Silhouette faced off at night in front of the Austrian national assembly building. I had the mech fire its flamethrower at Silhouette (2d6 RKA Continuous) despite the fact I knew perfectly well there was no way that puny an attack would bother Silhouette in the slightest. She got covered in flaming goo and looked awesome for a few seconds as she "burned" and then proceeded to smash the mech into scrap metal.

[Vondy]

Re: Shtick!

 

I haven't formulated things quite so neatly, but I also tend to run skill/non-combat heavy games and have been using the idea of "shticks" for a long time. We even call them that, inspired by the Feng Shui game

 

The way I do it is that combat shticks are simply "combat talents" - powers bought with the special effect of being amazing skills. Examples are things like amazing climbing (clinging) and stealth (invisibility) for the thief shtick, or autofire or area effect HKA or HA for martial arts shticks, dice of healing for the gifted healer shtick. These are expensive enough that most PCs who have one, end up with 1 such shtick, and few if any get more than 3 (since you can't add your shtick to free equipment: a shtick by definition is personal). If the shtick is very cohesive, they can even put these powers into a framework (this replaces martial arts in my games, since a school of martial arts is by definition a "cohesive set of powers")

 

For skills, I am simply generous with their effects. For "Creepy Death Brother Dude", Necromancer 18- is going to cover the bases pretty well. If the player comes across a forbidden tome of Pelnish Lore, then even if he doesn't have KS: Pelnish lore, I might say "That's pretty damn obscure - make a roll at -6 to know anything about it" or "This has been a jealously-guarded secret through the ages: it's virtually impossible to find out about - roll necromancy at -10". The same applies to sages or scientists: "Obscure lore, 18-" or "Superscience, 18-" covers a lot of bases, though if you want really obscure lore, or work with a lot of really strange alien technology, going higher might help (or buy appropriate complementaries). Again, based on experience, players tend to buy their core competency up high (we have at least one PC in the current game with skills at 18- and most have at least one skill in the 16-17- range), and then add a smattering of commonly-used complementary skills. The end result is experienced heroic level characters will often have 50+ points sunk into skills (not counting CSLs) but that will be 20-30% of their total cost.

 

Last of all, I have long used a rule now often known as "Let it ride" or "He's fucken Tarzan, dude!" which is that skill rolls are for important situations. In a recent adventure, to take an example, Aquila (Stealth 18-, Concealment 16-) was sneaking into an enemy castle. At various intervals, I rolled dice behind my shield (so as not to tell the player when he was approaching something dangerous) and happily ignored them, simply giving the player a description of guards dodged, statues hidden behind and so on. Basically, under normal circumstances (and for Aquila, sneaking around an unknown castle in dead of night is normal circumstances) he's not going to stumble over things or make a huge racket. He was happy, since as far as he could tell he was being supremely stealthy, and benefitting from those points sunk into stealth (which I guess he was, in a way) and it let me get on with the game.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I term the rule you mention "He's Freaking Conan!" Its the same rule, though. I like youre framework method for martial arts. Its elegant. I've turned heretic and started using an MoS driven sill centric combat system, but for more orthodox games I would use something like it.

[Markdoc]

Re: Shtick!

 

I term the rule you mention "He's Freaking Conan!" Its the same rule' date=' though. I like youre framework method for martial arts. Its elegant. I've turned heretic and started using an MoS driven sill centric combat system, but for more orthodox games I would use something like it.[/quote']

 

I've written it up for martial arts because we use that particular structure a lot, but I use the same approach for all sorts of things. In my short lived pulp game (Colonel Carruther's Colonial Company, ) one of the back-up PCs was a Sherlock Holmes knockoff who had an "incredible deduction" multipower (containing a series of detects and clairsentience, appropriately limited) designed to mimic gaining incredible amounts of information from observation.

 

For me, it's simply reasoning from effect: to mimic Sherlock Holmes' powers via skill rolls is a lot of hassle (and a lot of points). What he actually does is pierce disguises and reconstruct past events - even people's motives - by superb observation coupled with utterly obscure knowledge.

 

"Hmm. This ash is clearly from turkish tobacco. And expensive turkish tobacco at that. Pair that with the fact that the man's footprints evidence no swaying, the patent leather soles and it's obvious, he's no lascar. The short length of stride combined with the depth of the footprints indicates a short, heavily built man. Rather like the butler at Raglan Manor. I seem to recall Lord Raglan was the ambassador to Turkey back in '84...."

 

Tracking, KS:tobacco residues, AK: Little Futtering and KS: recent political appointments, or Clairsentience:retrocognition, only to reconstruct scene from evidence, RSR, coupled with KS:Obscure Knowledge 18-? I'd go with the latter, personally.

 

cheers, Mark

[DusterBoy]

Re: Shtick!

 

I've run into the Science! "shtick" B4: In a GURPS character building supplement, it was defined as a scientist who knows a lot about every branch of science and who's equally at home in a chemistry lab, out on an archeological dig, identifying previously unknown species, coming up with a new physics theory, etc. It was meant to let you play characters like Prof Challenger or Reed Richards who seem to know everything when it comes to scientific matters.

 

At the end of the description was this caveat: Not recommended for use in a realistic campaign.

[MorpheousXO]

Re: Shtick!

 

At the end of the description was this caveat: Not recommended for use in a realistic campaign.

 

Well obviously

[Dead guy on tab]

Re: Shtick!

 

The Ultimate Skill discusses similar ideas under Skill Enhancers. In a nutshell, characters can spend a certain amount of points to be experts in a defined area of skills or receive cost reduction for skills meeting the defined area. One of which was Universal Skill ala Universal Translator. In my campaign, I use a couple of house rules to allow for these types of characters without going wholesale into a Universal Skill setup. Characters who have bought a Skill Enhancer are assumed to have familiarities on all relevant skills for free (i.e. If you bought Scientist, you have Sc: Any Science 8-). In addition, I allow characters to spend saved xp during a session to purchase any relevant skill pending GM approval. This makes it easy to have the Reed Richards type for 3 pts. and a few unallocated XP to spend. This allows the player to allocate his abilities on a need basis as opposed to what I might need. Lastly, I also give extra XP for in session skill use.