Mad Skills

[Sean Waters]

I like the Hero combat system.

 

I like the fact that you have an offensive combat value and a defensive combat value and that they can be different, and that you can do all kinds of pretty interesting maneouvres that can affect them differently. I like the fact that you can do damage with it, and that damage has a cumulative effect.

 

The skill system, however, is expressed completely differently. We just have a number we have to roll under. Sure we can modify that number, to make things more exciting, but come on, which is the more exciting and interesting system?

 

Why don't we have 'ASV and RSV': or Active Skill Value and Resistive Skill Value? I mean, for a lot of stuff you won't need a RSV yourself - I mean, Climbing Skill is probably not something you will ever need to use a RSV for, but the cliff you are trying to get up would have one (OK - I suppose a tiny character might try and climb you) - but a lot of skills might well benefit on a personal interaction level - and social skills are an obvious example, but I'm sure we can think of other stuff too - I mean a given skill is not necessarily resisted by the same skill: in a given situation your ASV might be your Stealth Skill and your RSV might be someone else's PER.

 

This then means that you can do other interesting things too: Skill damage, for example. Rather than a seperate damage roll (necessarily) you could use your margin of success* against the 'Stun/Body' of the task you are trying to accomplish: for example if you want to crack a computer code you use your Computer Programming as the ASV, the Computer Programming roll of the guy who programmed the computer as the RSV and then you have to get a 'damage' total based on how long the guy took creating the code. It might require (say) 10 points of 'damage', meaning that, to crack a code created by someone of the same skill as you would require, on average 10 successful rolls, or about 16 phases to crack. Clearly if the other guy is significantly better or worse at Computer Programming than you then that will have a big effect on how long it takes.

 

Hell, you could require 10000 'damage': that is going to take (for someone with 4 SPD) it is going to take 13 hours and 20 minutes of concerted work if you and the other guy are of the same skill.

 

Anyway, I may have mentioned this before, but that was ages ago: what do you think now?

 

 

 

 

*So you roll 11 when you need 11, that is 1 point, you roll 10 when you need 11 and that is 2 points, and so on...

[Tasha]

Re: Mad Skills

 

I am pretty sure that the mechanic you site is already built into the skill system via Skill vs Skill rolls. (6e1 pg 57)

 

ie I make a Lock with my PS Locksmith skill. I spend lots of time on it and make my roll by 5. So when Tasha the rogue goes to pick it, she takes a -5 to her Lockpicking roll to open that particular lock. If the Locksmith missed his roll, then Tasha would not even need to make a roll to pick the flawed lock.

 

The problem with the above system is that it can bog things down quite a bit.

 

One varient would be to toss out the current system (ie skill roll = 9+ Stat/5) for a system that works exactly like the combat system. Skill rolls would be based on Stat/3 base and the rolls would be like combat Offensive Skill Value - Defensive Skill Value +3d6. It would have a couple of nice benefits. It would increase skill granularity and also it would make all rolls work the same (Combat and non-combat). It could make GM's jobs easier as then they could just set a Defensive Skill Value to overcome to finish the task. ie to make a Lockpicking roll against the Lock's defensive value of 9, I would compare my Lockpicking skill 7 (she has a high dex), and find I need a 9- to make the roll. This would be a MAJOR change to the system and would have as many people against it as the change to figured Chars.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mad Skills

 

The problem with the above system is that it can bog things down quite a bit.

 

Just took the key comment.

 

Hero is a toolkit. Why not expand the current toolkit, where we have a very detailed and granular system for combat and a much less granular or detailed system for resolving other matters, to allow for a much more detailed and granular system for other resolutions. Now, in my view, these would not all be in play at once, for exactly the reason Tasha states - they could bog the game down. In a Law & Order game, we might have a very detailed and granular system for resolving courtroom drama, while a medical focused game might have a very detailed system for diagnoses and treatment. A diplomatic game might have very detailed and granular systems for social conflict. The conflicts around which the game is focused would be the ones with a detailed, granular resolution system.

 

And, in many cases, combat would not be resolved using the detailed, granular structure, but could be resolved far more quickly with opposed skill rolls. For example, in our diplomacy game, combat might be resolved by opposed Dueling and Fisticuffs rules, as applicable to the specific combat, and not played out in detail as it would not be the focus of the game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mad Skills

 

I am pretty sure that the mechanic you site is already built into the skill system via Skill vs Skill rolls. (6e1 pg 57)

 

ie I make a Lock with my PS Locksmith skill. I spend lots of time on it and make my roll by 5. So when Tasha the rogue goes to pick it, she takes a -5 to her Lockpicking roll to open that particular lock. If the Locksmith missed his roll, then Tasha would not even need to make a roll to pick the flawed lock.

 

The problem with the above system is that it can bog things down quite a bit.

 

One varient would be to toss out the current system (ie skill roll = 9+ Stat/5) for a system that works exactly like the combat system. Skill rolls would be based on Stat/3 base and the rolls would be like combat Offensive Skill Value - Defensive Skill Value +3d6. It would have a couple of nice benefits. It would increase skill granularity and also it would make all rolls work the same (Combat and non-combat). It could make GM's jobs easier as then they could just set a Defensive Skill Value to overcome to finish the task. ie to make a Lockpicking roll against the Lock's defensive value of 9, I would compare my Lockpicking skill 7 (she has a high dex), and find I need a 9- to make the roll. This would be a MAJOR change to the system and would have as many people against it as the change to figured Chars.

 

Well maybe not so major a change: we already have all the mechanics for this in place. 'Normal' tasks would have a RSV of 2, easy tasks would have a RSV of 0, hard tasks a RSV of 4 and up (the equivalent of a characteristic value of 0 or 20+ repectively). I thought it was worth talking about again because we don't have CHA/3 any more, since we got rid of figured comat values. That was always the problem before: we had two different ways of caulculating values. Now we don't.

 

We would redefine skills as (characteristic)/5: you have Lockpick skill and you have DEX of 10, you have Lockpick/2 (ASIDE: Why, when we re-did the whole thing, did we start OCV and DCV at 3 and not 2?). Against a 'standard' lock (ASV 2) you succeed on 11 or less. If you are DEX 15, you succeed against a 'standard' lock on 12-. And so on.

 

We'd actually be doing less work.

 

We'd also be dealing with fewer 'apparent' systems: yes the skill v skill system is like the combat system, but it FEELS very different. And - this bit may not have been addressed - we don't have a skill 'damage' system. We do have something like it with the 'time table': you can take longer and get a higher skill roll - but it does not work quite the same way.

 

If you have a task that would normally take you 1 month, you could take a +8 and an extra month and have a pretty good chance of succeding...or you could roll for 216 phases and have an eqaully good chance of succeeding, only that would take no more than around 20 minutes, even at SPD 2.

 

I'm sensing a disturbance in the force here...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Just took the key comment.

 

Hero is a toolkit. Why not expand the current toolkit, where we have a very detailed and granular system for combat and a much less granular or detailed system for resolving other matters, to allow for a much more detailed and granular system for other resolutions. Now, in my view, these would not all be in play at once, for exactly the reason Tasha states - they could bog the game down. In a Law & Order game, we might have a very detailed and granular system for resolving courtroom drama, while a medical focused game might have a very detailed system for diagnoses and treatment. A diplomatic game might have very detailed and granular systems for social conflict. The conflicts around which the game is focused would be the ones with a detailed, granular resolution system.

 

And, in many cases, combat would not be resolved using the detailed, granular structure, but could be resolved far more quickly with opposed skill rolls. For example, in our diplomacy game, combat might be resolved by opposed Dueling and Fisticuffs rules, as applicable to the specific combat, and not played out in detail as it would not be the focus of the game.

 

Non-combat combat We could do the 'granular' thing for what is important for the game in question. We've been talking about 'social combat' for ages: isn't this it? We just re-focus on what mtters in the game, or, indeed, at the moment in the game.

 

As for bogging, I don't see the difference between rolling 11- or rolling ASV 2 against RSV 2. We already do it in combat without blinking.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Haven't we been over this? The skill vs skill mechanism already covers "skill combat" and the GM and can make skill use as granular as his players can tolerate simply by breaking skill use down into smaller segments of time.

 

For example, the PCs want to go to the village of Tobermorey.

The GM can say:

1) "Sure. OK, you go to Tobermorey. Now what?"

2) "Tobermorey's a fair distance on the other side of the Goss wood - make an AK: Jugwold roll. OK, with an 11 it takes you three days, but you find your way there without trouble"

3) "Tobermorey's on the far side of the Goss wood. You can make an AK: Jugwold roll to see if you know one of the paths that run through it at -3. No? OK, well you can try information gathering among the merchants at the market .... by the way, do any of you have survival: temperate woods?"

 

Alternatively, even short tasks can (and often should) be broken down. Convincing the Hieropomp to declare the Duke of Wallash a heretic on a persuasion roll, might be a -5. ("He's always given generously to the church!") Breaking it down into tasks (Convincing the Hieropomp that he associates with enemies of the church, that he hasn't attended high holy day at the capital for a long time and why is that?, that his mistress is said to be a sorceress, that young girls are disappearing form local villages and that a new Duke of Wallash could actually be expected to be more generous in gratitude for attaining his positions with the Hieropomp's support, etc etc ... with appropriate evidence (faked or not) those rolls could be at -1 or even +1, depending on the people involved. They would probably involve multiple conversations with the Hieropomp and a deal of roleplaying (and a deal of adenturing, setting up evidence, finding witnesses, etc - all of which call for more skill rolls) but multiple rolls at +1/-1 is probably a more viable strategy than one roll at -5 .... especially since the Hieropomp is probably pretty persuasive himself.

 

But either is a viable approach with the rules as is. It depends on whether the players want to play "How do you convince the Hieropomp to isolate the Duke politically, so that you can safely force him to yield the sword?" or "That head priest guy has said it's OK to attack the old guy with the magic sword you need, so how are you going to get into the castle?"

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Actually, if you have a 13- roll, a -5 (which I agree is a substantial penalty) means you need 8-, so a 25.93% chance. [Picked 13- out of the air, but that's a base roll with 18 - 20 stat, which would typically be considered pretty good.]

 

5 rolls at -1 means 12- 5 times running. 12- is a 74.07% chance; 5 without a miss is a 22.3% chance, so you're better off with the 8- roll.

 

If you can get to +1 (14-), that's a 90.74% chance; 5 in a row is 61.5% - way better than 25.93%, but still a significant chance of failure. Success is less likely than an 11- base roll once.

 

Making multiple skill rolls, and having multiple opportunities to fail, can reduce the chance of success fairly rapidly.

 

Viewed another way, all those actions to get 5 rolls at +1 achieved just under +3 bonus (reducing -5 to about -2) and the efforts to bring -5 once to -1 4 times achieved a minor penalty (less than -1)

 

If we bump the skill up to 15, he has a 50% chance of making a roll at -5, or a 61.5% chance of 5 rolls at -1 (an improvement, but not a huge one) or a 78.9% chance at 5 rolls at +1. So that's effectively a +1 bonus (a bit less) for all that work to make 5 rolls, or a +2 bonus (a bit better as 12- is a 74% chance) for all that work to make this into 5 rolls at +1.

 

If he started with 11- (good luck!) he has a 9.26% chance of making one 6- roll, a 3.125% chance of making 5 10- rolls (worse than a further -1 penalty on a single roll)) or a 22.3% chance of making 5 12- rolls (not quite as good as a +2 bonus on a single roll).

 

Splitting the task into several smaller tasks with reduced penalties may not be beneficial under your model. In several cases, it looks like it further reduces already poor odds. The fact that we get this unanticipated result (unless you do all the probability analysis up front) suggests value to a fully fleshed out system, whether "get more skill rolls with better modifiers" or some other system to make the resolution of skill-based challenges more robust.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Like any sort of social interaction, it's highly context dependant: there are times when it's best to go all-in, for a single gamble. There are times when it's better to chip away at the problem.

 

However, in the kind of skill vs skill contest I outlined, remember that rolls are typically opposed: that changes the odds dramatically. Unless your target has no skill at all (and most social skills are everyman skills), a -5 is almost certain to be a very substantial (probably fatal) penalty. Moreover, by breaking a large task into multiple small tasks, a single failure typically only creates a small setback.

 

In the example I gave, failing to convince the Hieropomp that the Duke's new girlfriend is suspicious probably (depending, of course on, context) isn't going to derail your whole smear campaign. On the other hand, if your whole attempt rests on one roll success/failure at a substantial penalty, the odds are very good you're just going to fail. If we assume that our PC has a 13- roll, even if the Hieropomp has no opposing skill roll, he still gets an EGO roll (see 6E1, page 84), and even if we assume he only has an average EGO and gets 11-, with a -5 penalty, the PC has an 8- roll to work with: 25.9% chance of success vs the Hieropomp's 62.5% chance of disbelieving. His chance of actually beating the Hieropomp's roll on a single contest is 0.5%. Under the same numbers, 5 rolls at -1 is still no sure thing (in fact the odds are still heavily against you) but you still have about 20x the chance of success, that you'd get going with a single -5 roll.

 

Equally relevant, of course, is that when you engage in this sort of extended skill contest, you are hopefully piling up bonuses as each successful roll makes your target more inclined to see you as trustworthy (of course multiple failures will have the opposite effect!). The trick then becomes roleplaying your way to better bonuses. If the Hieropomp is vain flatter him, if he's greedy, bribe him, if he's pious, get a church father to support you, etc etc.

 

Even where you are not using opposed rolls (like in the crosscountry travel example I gave) making a single roll and failing means you can't find your way to Tobermorey. Using the extended skill contest just means your first failure sets you up for more rolls: it make take more time (and more roleplaying) to get the result you want, because the failures are not necessarily final. Of course, if the players haven't invested many points in skills, then the whole thing is moot, because you'll likely just end up with multiple failures.

 

There's a reason players in my game have multiple PCs with skills in the 15+ range, including social skills (the highest skill is 20-, even though this is a heroic campaign, built with 50+50 starting characters): they're heroes, and after 5 years of playing this campaign, they're the best there is at what they do And they know that skills matter.

 

That's the key point. If the GM doesn't make skills matter the PCs won't buy them. If he does - well, we already have a very flexible system that does all the stuff Sean asked for in his first post.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Mad Skills

 

I don't see why you couldn't use the Skill vs Skill roll as is and assign the cliff you want to climb a "skill" roll if you like that flavor, or pre-assign it a RSV value. But that is just a slightly different way of saying "No hand-holds in this cliff, so it is -3 to any Climbing roll". To me it is similar to the difference of computing whether someone hits in combat as OCV+11-DCV = To Hit Roll or doing it as OCV+11-Dice Roll = DCV you can hit; both work it just depends on which you like better.

 

The "damage" for skills is an interesting concept, and I can see application especially where it may take a while to puzzle a problem out or slowly convince a person of your position or something. But I think it would just be extra paperwork. It would be easier to say "To complete this task you must make 3 successful skill rolls, the first at -2, the second and third at +1" or whatever.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Mad Skills

 

It's already built into the system.

 

Most of the time you're trying to achieve a Skill Roll by a specific number - a great example is in the new Champions Villains books; make KS Rolls by X Amount gets you Y Information. It's a lot like trying to hit DCV Or Less.

 

Also, I usually express my base Attack Roll similar to Skill Roll, OCV 5 is Attack 16-. Making DCV a Target to make my Attack Roll by.

 

Then you have Skill Modifiers that are just like Attack Modifiers.

 

It's all already there, Skill Roll vs Target Number; Attack Roll vs DCV. No need to change the system on iota.

[dmjalund]

Re: Mad Skills

 

To make skills more like combat, they should have a DC value, and tasks should have a DEF and BODY (and perhaps even STUN) characteristic

 

(with my 5d6 persuasion attack, not only do I stun my audience, I even do 2m of Knockback!)

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

I don't see why you couldn't use the Skill vs Skill roll as is and assign the cliff you want to climb a "skill" roll if you like that flavor' date=' or pre-assign it a RSV value. But that is just a slightly different way of saying "No hand-holds in this cliff, so it is -3 to any Climbing roll". To me it is similar to the difference of computing whether someone hits in combat as OCV+11-DCV = To Hit Roll or doing it as OCV+11-Dice Roll = DCV you can hit; both work it just depends on which you like better.[/quote']

 

This is always inherent in the rules. Climb a ladder in your house? So simple no rolls are needed. Climb the north face of the Eiger in a howling gale? -6 - if not more. Penalties and bonuses are an inherent part of the system, and if you're not using them liberally in your games you're not using the Hero system for skills.

 

The "damage" for skills is an interesting concept' date=' and I can see application especially where it may take a while to puzzle a problem out or slowly convince a person of your position or something. But I think it would just be extra paperwork. It would be easier to say "To complete this task you must make 3 successful skill rolls, the first at -2, the second and third at +1" or whatever.[/quote']

 

Simpler, easier (IMO) and already in the rules, is the time factor. If a skill roll has a big minus on it, the simplest way to reduce that minus is to take extra time. If you want to be certain of getting a task done successfully, don't rush it. This allows the player to say "OK, this looks difficult - it's gonna take me a few hours". I also encourage the liberal use of complementary skills, to overcome some of those daunting penalties.

 

Also - as I noted in the subthread, I allow players to try and break difficult rolls down into subrolls (obviously that's not always possible: if you are trying to catch a flag pole while falling, one grab is all you get) which typically reflect simpler tasks.

 

cheers, Mark

[薔薇語]

Re: Mad Skills

 

It's already built into the system.

 

Most of the time you're trying to achieve a Skill Roll by a specific number - a great example is in the new Champions Villains books; make KS Rolls by X Amount gets you Y Information. It's a lot like trying to hit DCV Or Less.

 

Also, I usually express my base Attack Roll similar to Skill Roll, OCV 5 is Attack 16-. Making DCV a Target to make my Attack Roll by.

 

Then you have Skill Modifiers that are just like Attack Modifiers.

 

It's all already there, Skill Roll vs Target Number; Attack Roll vs DCV. No need to change the system on iota.

 

Aw. You beet me to it all. But more or less what GA and even Ockham pointed out. If you truly want the difficulty of climbing a cliff to be different not only based on the person climbing but the "mood" (for the lack of a better word) of the cliff, then just assign the Cliff some arbitrary counter skill and use the SvS rules. Otherwise, not much in the proposal seems that different from what is already built in.

 

La Rose.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mad Skills

 

However, in the kind of skill vs skill contest I outlined, remember that rolls are typically opposed: that changes the odds dramatically. Unless your target has no skill at all (and most social skills are everyman skills), a -5 is almost certain to be a very substantial (probably fatal) penalty. Moreover, by breaking a large task into multiple small tasks, a single failure typically only creates a small setback.

 

In the example I gave, failing to convince the Hieropomp that the Duke's new girlfriend is suspicious probably (depending, of course on, context) isn't going to derail your whole smear campaign. On the other hand, if your whole attempt rests on one roll success/failure at a substantial penalty, the odds are very good you're just going to fail. If we assume that our PC has a 13- roll, even if the Hieropomp has no opposing skill roll, he still gets an EGO roll (see 6E1, page 84), and even if we assume he only has an average EGO and gets 11-, with a -5 penalty, the PC has an 8- roll to work with: 25.9% chance of success vs the Hieropomp's 62.5% chance of disbelieving. His chance of actually beating the Hieropomp's roll on a single contest is 0.5%. Under the same numbers, 5 rolls at -1 is still no sure thing (in fact the odds are still heavily against you) but you still have about 20x the chance of success, that you'd get going with a single -5 roll.

 

If all you have done is raised a 0.5% chance to a 10% chance, you are still most likely to fail. You just dragged it out more. I don't disagree with the approach, but I think it could stand some fleshing out in the rules so that the GM and players migrating from another game can have some guidance as to the level of breaking down, and the extent of bonus/penalty change required, which is needed to make a given task attainable by the player characters. Lots of math and.or 20+ years Hero experience will let you work this out, but that's not likely to help broaden the player base significantly.

 

Equally relevant' date=' of course, is that when you engage in this sort of extended skill contest, you are hopefully piling up bonuses as each successful roll makes your target more inclined to see you as trustworthy (of course multiple failures will have the opposite effect!). The trick then becomes roleplaying your way to better bonuses. If the Hieropomp is vain flatter him, if he's greedy, bribe him, if he's pious, get a church father to support you, etc etc.[/quote']

 

I wouldn't consider that "role playing". I'd consider it "social tactics". First, you need to find out that the Heiropomp is vain, greedy and/or pious (probably by information gathering from third parties - you don't get a lot of audiences with the Heiropomp, especially if you use them for trial and error to determine what will and will not gain favour). Then, you need to work that into your presentation. Finally, you need to add in the role playing aspect, since some of these tactics may fly in the face of the role you are playing (a scrupulously honest, or brutally blunt, character should have difficulty flattering, a law-abiding character should have a tough time with bribery and a character who is agnostic or atheistic will have difficulty with piety).

 

Even where you are not using opposed rolls (like in the crosscountry travel example I gave) making a single roll and failing means you can't find your way to Tobermorey. Using the extended skill contest just means your first failure sets you up for more rolls: it make take more time (and more roleplaying) to get the result you want' date=' because the failures are not necessarily final. Of course, if the players haven't invested many points in skills, then the whole thing is moot, because you'll likely just end up with multiple failures.[/quote']

 

Viewed another way, I would suggest the GM must first guide the players to what will be important in his game, so they know what they are expected to invest points in, and then set challenges appropriate to the PC's. If the players have built combat monsters with minimal skill investment, the GM either needs to steer them towards better designed characters for his game, or set challenges appropriate for their skills. Having them get lost in the woods and starve to death, or be afraid to leave town because this is the likely result, will not make for a great game.

 

There's a reason players in my game have multiple PCs with skills in the 15+ range' date=' including social skills (the highest skill is 20-, even though this is a heroic campaign, built with 50+50 starting characters): they're heroes, and after 5 years of playing this campaign, they're the best there is at what they do And they know that skills matter.[/quote']

 

And, I suspect, they face combat challenges very different from those they would face if they tended to skills in the 12+ range, with the highest being 15, and had much better combat abilities as a consequence. I don't think the logic depends on the level of the skill rolls - if they had 13- skills and faced a -2 penalty, that's the same as having 21- skills and facing a -10 penalty. The challenges in most games scale up as the heroes become more competent.

 

This is always inherent in the rules. Climb a ladder in your house? So simple no rolls are needed. Climb the north face of the Eiger in a howling gale? -6 - if not more. Penalties and bonuses are an inherent part of the system' date=' and if you're not using them liberally in your games you're not using the Hero system for skills.[/quote']

 

I would highlight "so simple no roll is required" as well. Having the character with a 20- skill fail in a mundane task because "ha ha you rolled an 18" does not, in my experience, result in a pleasant gaming experience. When the characters invest substantial points in skills, there's nothing wrong with allowing them to succeed automatically in tasks the unskilled or even less skilled would have difficulty succeeding with. This highlights that those experienced characters are "the best of the best".

 

Now, if I want a system where everything has a failure chance, making the tasks more granular (like combat, where a single missed attack does not typically equate to losing the battle) seems to make a lot of sense, whether this is done by breaking the task into multiple skill rolls or by creating a more detailed system for resolving complex tasks involving that skill set.

 

Simpler' date=' easier (IMO) and already in the rules, is the time factor. If a skill roll has a big minus on it, the simplest way to reduce that minus is to take extra time. If you want to be certain of getting a task done successfully, don't rush it. This allows the player to say "[i']OK, this looks difficult - it's gonna take me a few hours[/i]". I also encourage the liberal use of complementary skills, to overcome some of those daunting penalties.

 

In some cases, just getting that extra time could be part of the adventure. A five minute audience with the Heiropomp doesn't give me nearly as much opportunity to subtly bring down my rival as several hours at a feast sitting at his right hand side. Complementary skills are good, however they also highlight the overpricing of skill levels. If I need two complementary skills plus my main skill, having +5 INT is way better than having +1 skill level, or even +2 skill levels, with INT skills, since I can apply the bonus to all three skills, rather than just one. That's a separate issue, though.

 

Also - as I noted in the subthread' date=' I allow players to try and break difficult rolls down into subrolls (obviously that's not always possible: if you are trying to catch a flag pole while falling, one grab is all you get) which typically reflect simpler tasks.[/quote']

 

A system for subrolls would be one approach for a more robust and detailed system for resolving activities involving skill rolls. As noted above, this should be set out in enough detail to permit a novice GM to implement this approach, not require extensive Hero System experience and/or probability analysis to make it work.

[Vondy]

Re: Mad Skills

 

I...

 

/snippage

 

6e1-57

 

Toolkitting: Changing The Way Skill Rolls Work

 

Last Item in the second column.

 

Edit: The only issue with using it is getting used to gauging appropriate DVs.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

If all you have done is raised a 0.5% chance to a 10% chance' date=' you are still most likely to fail. You just dragged it out more. I don't disagree with the approach, but I think it could stand some fleshing out in the rules so that the GM and players migrating from another game can have some guidance as to the level of breaking down, and the extent of bonus/penalty change required, which is needed to make a given task attainable by the player characters. Lots of math and.or 20+ years Hero experience will let you work this out, but that's not likely to help broaden the player base significantly.[/quote']

 

I was just riffing off the skill levels you suggested, and starting with the extreme example mentioned - give the PC a 15- skill (which is what you really want if you are going to indulging in national level diplomacy) and the numbers change from a poor chance on a single roll at -5 to a much better than even chance working your way through subtasks. The point remains unaltered - generally, breaking a difficult opposed roll into smaller, less difficult (and often less crucial) subtasks is beneficial.

 

Other times, of course, everything is going to ride on a crucial roll.

 

I wouldn't consider that "role playing". I'd consider it "social tactics". First' date=' you need to find out that the Heiropomp is vain, greedy and/or pious (probably by information gathering from third parties - you don't get a lot of audiences with the Heiropomp, especially if you use them for trial and error to determine what will and will not gain favour). Then, you need to work that into your presentation. Finally, you need to [b']add in[/b] the role playing aspect, since some of these tactics may fly in the face of the role you are playing (a scrupulously honest, or brutally blunt, character should have difficulty flattering, a law-abiding character should have a tough time with bribery and a character who is agnostic or atheistic will have difficulty with piety)

 

Semantics. If the players are sitting around discussing how they're going to get information on the Hieropomp's personality and speculating on who's going to be best for information gathering, I'd call it roleplaying.

 

Viewed another way' date=' I would suggest the GM must first guide the players to what will be important in his game, so they know what they are expected to invest points in, and then set challenges appropriate to the PC's. If the players have built combat monsters with minimal skill investment, the GM either needs to steer them towards better designed characters for his game, or set challenges appropriate for their skills. Having them get lost in the woods and starve to death, or be afraid to leave town because this is the likely result, will not make for a great game.[/quote']

 

That goes without saying. Equally, allowing them to sink half their points into social skills and then throwing them into the Tomb of Horrors would be poor gm'ing.

 

And' date=' I suspect, they face combat challenges very different from those they would face if they tended to skills in the 12+ range, with the highest being 15, and had much better combat abilities as a consequence. I don't think the logic depends on the level of the skill rolls - if they had 13- skills and faced a -2 penalty, that's the same as having 21- skills and facing a -10 penalty. The challenges in most games scale up as the heroes become more competent.[/quote']

 

If all challenges scale, that's another sign of poor GM'ing. Some challenges will scale. However, many won't (or shouldn't). The heroes in my current game now have some skills where we don't bother to roll, except under unusual circumstances. But of course, the implication is also that the guy with a 20- skill is capable of feats that even someone well-experienced in the art wouldn't consider. It's part of being a hero.

 

I would highlight "so simple no roll is required" as well. Having the character with a 20- skill fail in a mundane task because "ha ha you rolled an 18" does not' date=' in my experience, result in a pleasant gaming experience. When the characters invest substantial points in skills, there's nothing wrong with allowing them to succeed automatically in tasks the unskilled or even less skilled would have difficulty succeeding with. This highlights that those experienced characters are "the best of the best". [/quote']

 

Exactly: see above. Also, these days, called the "He's f*****ng Tarzan" rule

 

Now' date=' if I want a system where everything has a failure chance, making the tasks more granular (like combat, where a single missed attack does not typically equate to losing the battle) seems to make a lot of sense, whether this is done by breaking the task into multiple skill rolls or by creating a more detailed system for resolving complex tasks involving that skill set.[/quote']

 

Actually breaking a task into smaller tasks only makes sense where it's useful - where for example, the players can reduce penalties, or bring more skills to bear. It's an option offered to players, not a rule forced on them. The purpose isn't granularity. And god forbid it should be seen as an attempt to make the system more complex. It's complex enough as it is.

 

Here's a simple example. A guy at high school wants to get a girl to go out with him. He can:

1. Waltz straight up and say "Hey babeee ... wanna go out with me?" Straight roll, one phase, 1 minute game time. Here's hoping he spent some points on PRE, striking appearance and social skills, or that she's not fussy.

2. Tell the GM he's spending a week hanging out with her friends and trying to be helpful/get to know her. One roll, 2 minutes game time, but maybe he gets an extra time bonus.

3. Play it through, finding what she likes and using cramming so that he can acquire a smattering of knowledge in her favourite bands. Possibly multiple rolls, possibly extra time bonuses, possibly a bonus for shared interests, possibly a bonus from complementary rolls. Might be resolved in three rolls and 5 minutes or might take 16 rolls and an evening's play with some roleplaying.

4. Use Mind Control

 

There is no "right way". Any of these options are viable and Hero system already provides all the tools you need to exploit any one - the game can move from level to level of detail as play and player interest dictates.

 

In some cases' date=' just getting that extra time could be part of the adventure. A five minute audience with the Heiropomp doesn't give me nearly as much opportunity to subtly bring down my rival as several hours at a feast sitting at his right hand side. [/quote']

 

Exactly! Now you are starting to think the way I encourage my players to. That's the role playing I am referring to: starting to think of the NPC as a person embedded in a setting - not merely as a DCV and BOD.

 

Complementary skills are good' date=' however they also highlight the overpricing of skill levels. If I need two complementary skills plus my main skill, having +5 INT is way better than having +1 skill level, or even +2 skill levels, with INT skills, since I can apply the bonus to all three skills, rather than just one. That's a separate issue, though.[/quote']

 

As a minor note, you can generally use your skill levels on both a complementary and a main skill as long as they are done at seperate times: levels used on a social skill to gather information should not (and by RAW do not) lock them out when using that information in a conversation the next day. That aside, I agree that INT is underpriced compared to skill levels.

 

A system for subrolls would be one approach for a more robust and detailed system for resolving activities involving skill rolls. As noted above' date=' this should be set out in enough detail to permit a novice GM to implement this approach, not require extensive Hero System experience and/or probability analysis to make it work.[/quote']

 

My players can work it out, without effort, even though none of them can do more than the very simplest probability analysis. All they need is feedback from the GM, in instances where it is appropriate (for example: "You're a wanted man, you're covered in duckweed and you smell like the moat. You think that the Hieropomp's guards probably won't grant you access, even if you do have persuasion 15-").

 

I'm not sure how much more text it requires - and for that matter, whether more text would make a difference: my experience has been that people who like skill based games will use lots of skills, and those who don't ... won't. I'm not sure more detailed instructions in the core rules would help either way.

 

cheers, Mark

[JusticeZero]

Re: Mad Skills

 

I've often contemplated a split skill system, having known a lot of people with similar skills and seeing two different 'styles'. The idea of splitting tasks into 'OCV/DCV' and 'BODY/*D' makes sense to me. Some people develop their skill to have a lot of knowledge and be able to address more arcane and theoretical concerns. They can HIT the core of some quite difficult tasks. Others are very practiced and fast with a lesser body of skill. They may not be able to make a masterpiece, but they can get a huge amount of EFFECT to happen. One might be a master chef who knows all the tricks to making a fine dinner suitable for a visiting noble, the other, a master sandwich-maker who can make quite tasty sandwiches and make them consistantly enough to serve all the workers at the embassy, but would be helpless to understand the master chef's recipes.

[gojira]

Re: Mad Skills

 

If you truly want the difficulty of climbing a cliff to be different not only based on the person climbing but the "mood" (for the lack of a better word) of the cliff' date=' then just assign the Cliff some arbitrary counter skill and use the SvS rules.[/quote']

 

 

Then there's the lazy GM way: roll 1d6 and subtract roughly 3. The result is the bonus/penalty to preform any task that you weren't really expecting the player to ask about.

[Vondy]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Of course, it occurs to me, if combat and skill resolution are going to use the same system, one could shunt the four combat values into the skill system, just with different costs. The everyman skill value for them could be "3." Or, if you wanted to be a little radical, leave the base values for the everyman version at 3, but turn weapon familiarities into actual skills with active values to roll against... it does raise the issue of the defensive value not being active due to limited numbers of skills in play at a given time, but you could hand-wave the problem and say people are always defending. Or, you could be super-radical, do away with combat values, and go with maneuvers and skill levels for both. Then players would have to actually consider using defensive combat levels or maneuvers that provided a bonus if they wanted to model evasive combat moves. The base combat values are essentially levels anyways and the disparity with skill levels (combat values are always on) can be handled by telling players to slap the correct modifiers (persistent, trigger, etc) on the levels in question. Which is what should happen in a cost-balanced system, anyways.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

I've often contemplated a split skill system' date=' having known a lot of people with similar skills and seeing two different 'styles'. The idea of splitting tasks into 'OCV/DCV' and 'BODY/*D' makes sense to me. Some people develop their skill to have a lot of knowledge and be able to address more arcane and theoretical concerns. They can HIT the core of some quite difficult tasks. Others are very practiced and fast with a lesser body of skill. They may not be able to make a masterpiece, but they can get a huge amount of EFFECT to happen. One might be a master chef who knows all the tricks to making a fine dinner suitable for a visiting noble, the other, a master sandwich-maker who can make quite tasty sandwiches and make them consistantly enough to serve all the workers at the embassy, but would be helpless to understand the master chef's recipes.[/quote']

 

Already covered. PS: Cook and KS: Cooking give you practical experience and theoretical knowledge, respectively.

 

regards, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Semantics. If the players are sitting around discussing how they're going to get information on the Hieropomp's personality and speculating on who's going to be best for information gathering' date=' I'd call it roleplaying.[/quote']

 

I would not. To me, role playing is playing the character's personality - ie getting into the role. Delivering a masterful speech which incorporates the various aspects of the Heiropomp's which you have discovered will incline him to think your way and the various facts you have discovered and can support with evidence to demonstrate that your desired outcome is appropriate is excellent tactics. However, if your character has an 8 PRE, an 8 INT and Complications like "Brutally blunt" and "Socially inept", using those brilliant tactics is poor role playing.

 

Arguably semantics, but I consider the differentiation important. Good tactics merit a bonus to the roll. Poor role playing merits a penalty to xp. Good tactics that conflict with good role playing create a bad game session, in my view, especially where the player is forced to choose between role playing his character appropriately and moving the game forward by the GM's approach. The player whose character makes the great speech despite the fact it is totally out of character is not role playing - he is moving a pawn in a boardgame.

 

That goes without saying. Equally' date=' allowing them to sink half their points into social skills and then throwing them into the Tomb of Horrors would be poor gm'ing.[/quote']

 

If it went without saying, then it would not become an issue in many games. It wouldn't hurt the rules to include more advice for good GMing. It won't help those who want to view the game as adversarial, for example, but it will benefit those who are not familiar with the concepts, including those whose RPG experience is limited to "kill the monsters; take their stuff" gaming.

 

If all challenges scale' date=' that's another sign of poor GM'ing. [b']Some[/b] challenges will scale. However, many won't (or shouldn't). The heroes in my current game now have some skills where we don't bother to roll, except under unusual circumstances. But of course, the implication is also that the guy with a 20- skill is capable of feats that even someone well-experienced in the art wouldn't consider. It's part of being a hero.

 

Could be another semantics issue. Should it be easier for the rookie adventurers to get an audience with the Heiropomp or slay a dragon? No, it shouldn't. But the scenarios for such characters should not require them to accomplish these things. The challenges they need to overcome are scaled to their abilities. As they grow in skill or power, the challenges they face also grow. Funny how they never needed to slay a dragon or engage in international diplomacy before - those challenges conveniently waited until they had the ability to deal with them. Also interesting that the Goblins no longer engage in raids now that they would no longer be a challenge.

 

Actually breaking a task into smaller tasks only makes sense where it's useful - where for example' date=' the players can reduce penalties, or bring more skills to bear. It's an option [b']offered[/b] to players, not a rule forced on them. The purpose isn't granularity. And god forbid it should be seen as an attempt to make the system more complex. It's complex enough as it is.

 

 

For reasons of complexity, I think adding a more robust and detailed resolution system for one area would logically be offset by downgrading the system for an area which is less important to the specific game, such as reducing combat to an opposed skill in a game where King's Court Diplomacy and Intrigue is intended to take the center stage. If the real challenges of the game can't be solved by combat, there is no reason that resolution of combat should occupy substantial game time.

 

Here's a simple example. A guy at high school wants to get a girl to go out with him. He can:

1. Waltz straight up and say "Hey babeee ... wanna go out with me?" Straight roll, one phase, 1 minute game time. Here's hoping he spent some points on PRE, striking appearance and social skills, or that she's not fussy.

2. Tell the GM he's spending a week hanging out with her friends and trying to be helpful/get to know her. One roll, 2 minutes game time, but maybe he gets an extra time bonus.

3. Play it through, finding what she likes and using cramming so that he can acquire a smattering of knowledge in her favourite bands. Possibly multiple rolls, possibly extra time bonuses, possibly a bonus for shared interests, possibly a bonus from complementary rolls. Might be resolved in three rolls and 5 minutes or might take 16 rolls and an evening's play with some roleplaying.

4. Use Mind Control

 

The levels (other than #1 and #2 which could be used interchangeably) would logically depend on the focus of the game. If this is simply a quick highlight from one team member's secret ID, the first two resolutions (one roll and we move on) is the appropriate solution. If we're playing a game focused around high school students and their social interactions (for whatever reason...), then the third approach seems appropriate (and we might downgrade combat resolution, since fights aren't supposed to be the focus of the game and should not dominate game time - just roll your opposed Brawling roll with complementary STR, CON and DEX rolls).

 

There is no "right way". Any of these options are viable and Hero system already provides all the tools you need to exploit any one - the game can move from level to level of detail as play and player interest dictates.

 

The lack of a right answer does not preclude the existence of wrong answers. If the game is supposed to revolve around a specific type of challenge, and those challenges are resolved by a two minute discussion and a single roll, where challenges expected to be ancillary are resolved through a detailed mechanical structure, and takes hours, the game is not achieving its objective, and I would expect the players to lose interest, be dissatisfied, or at least comment that the supposed focus of the game doesn't seem to get much screen time.

 

Exactly! Now you are starting to think the way I encourage my players to. That's the role playing I am referring to: starting to think of the NPC as a person embedded in a setting - not merely as a DCV and BOD.

 

I like that terminology for role playing. However, if your own character becomes a chameleon whose views, biases and foibles are swept under the rug when they become an impediment to success, that's lousy role playing.

 

As a minor note' date=' you can generally use your skill levels on both a complementary and a main skill as long as they are done at seperate times: levels used on a social skill to gather information should not (and by RAW do not) lock them out when using that information in a conversation the next day. That aside, I agree that INT is underpriced compared to skill levels.[/quote']

 

Absolutely. However, often two or more skills are useful in resolving the same issue, for example a medical issue where your SS: Microbiology and KS: Genetics can assist your PS: Medical Diagnostics will require your levels to be allocated between the skills, where a higher INT raises all three. I think the issue is that skill levels in general are overpriced compared to the related characteristics, but that's not this thread's focus.

 

My players can work it out' date=' without effort, even though none of them can do more than the very simplest probability analysis. [b']All they need is feedback from the GM[/b], in instances where it is appropriate (for example: "You're a wanted man, you're covered in duckweed and you smell like the moat. You think that the Hieropomp's guards probably won't grant you access, even if you do have persuasion 15-").

 

Emphasis added. Here, the GM is substituting for having an issue spelled out in the rules. Some groups may not need this extra discussion because they already use the tools in practice. Many groups don't need pre-fab powers or gear because they are comfortable building their own, and others don't need pre-fab adversaries. Ultimately, some groups could just write their own rules and don't need a game system at all. However, I think there are enough groups that would value rules for more robust, detailed resolution mechanics for non-combat challenges that there is some merit in publishing these.

 

Already covered. PS: Cook and KS: Cooking give you practical experience and theoretical knowledge' date=' respectively.[/quote']

 

I don't see the example as PS vs KS. The Master Chef has a PS, and so does the Sandwich Server. Under the current model, I think they are two different PS's. The Master Chef could not cater a party of 500, and the Sandwich Server won't be serving up Lobster Thermador and Creme Brulee any time soon.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

I would not.

 

Ah, but I would. As I said, semantics. A player who tried to play against his character's skills and complications is unlikely to get far.

 

If it went without saying' date=' then it would not become an issue in many games. It wouldn't hurt the rules to include more advice for good GMing. It won't help those who want to view the game as adversarial, for example, but it will benefit those who are not familiar with the concepts, including those whose RPG experience is limited to "kill the monsters; take their stuff" gaming.[/quote']

 

There's already plenty of advice in the book, plus examples: if people won't read and retain a small amount of text, what makes you think they would read and retain a larger amount of text?

 

Could be another semantics issue. Should it be easier for the rookie adventurers to get an audience with the Heiropomp or slay a dragon? No' date=' it shouldn't. But the scenarios for such characters should not require them to accomplish these things. The challenges they need to overcome are scaled to their abilities. As they grow in skill or power, the challenges they face also grow. Funny how they never needed to slay a dragon or engage in international diplomacy before - those challenges conveniently waited until they had the ability to deal with them. Also interesting that the Goblins no longer engage in raids now that they would no longer be a challenge.[/quote']

 

Why don't the goblins engage in raids? Unless there's a reason, I certainly wouldn't make them stop. They may no longer be the players' concern, but unless they have been eradicated, they should remain in play.

The same with dragons. I have actually had players decide to tackle a dragon, despite warnings of their "huge 'orrible teeth" secure in the knowledge that I'm a bit of a softy as a GM and I wouldn't kill off all their beloved characters. I didn't - one survived the initial assault and fled while the dragon feasted on the remainder.

 

I think a valuable lesson was learned that day.

As the Celestials say: "Haphae-lad lodash vo maladin!"

 

For reasons of complexity' date=' I think adding a more robust and detailed resolution system for one area would logically be offset by downgrading the system for an area which is less important to the specific game, such as reducing combat to an opposed skill in a game where King's Court Diplomacy and Intrigue is intended to take the center stage. If the real challenges of the game can't be solved by combat, there is no reason that resolution of combat should occupy substantial game time.[/quote']

 

If you are not using it, how do you save time by downgrading it? Adding an extra combat system does nothing to simplify: it only complicates.

 

In my current game, combat occurs in a clear minority of sessions: social interaction and skill use is more important. But we've never felt any need for extra rules - Hero system has a simple, subtle and highly flexible system, straight out of the box. Adding more rules isn't necessarily going to improve it, any more than adding extra rules to Go would improve that game.

 

Mo' bling ain't mo' bedda.

 

The levels (other than #1 and #2 which could be used interchangeably) would logically depend on the focus of the game. If this is simply a quick highlight from one team member's secret ID' date=' the first two resolutions (one roll and we move on) is the appropriate solution. If we're playing a game focused around high school students and their social interactions (for whatever reason...), then the third approach seems appropriate [/quote']

 

But there are times - in a single game, even within a single evening's play, in a single game - where you move back and forth between those levels. The current system does that well.

 

(and we might downgrade combat resolution' date=' since fights aren't supposed to be the focus of the game and should not dominate game time - just roll your opposed Brawling roll with complementary STR, CON and DEX rolls).[/quote']

 

You could, but that adds a level of extra complication I don't need and don't want. Hero already has a combat system. I don't want two incompatible ones, nor do I want to build my own game system. If I did, I would have done it already.

 

]The lack of a right answer does not preclude the existence of wrong answers. If the game is supposed to revolve around a specific type of challenge' date=' and those challenges are resolved by a two minute discussion and a single roll, where challenges expected to be ancillary are resolved through a detailed mechanical structure, and takes hours, the game is not achieving its objective, and I would expect the players to lose interest, be dissatisfied, or at least comment that the supposed focus of the game doesn't seem to get much screen time.[/quote']

 

True. Irrelevant to the discussion, but true.

 

I like that terminology for role playing. However' date=' if your own character becomes a chameleon whose views, biases and foibles are swept under the rug when they become an impediment to success, that's lousy role playing. [/quote']

 

If the GM ignores them, that's lousy GM'ing. Otherwise, it's not unusual in real life for people to struggle against their social handicaps.

 

Absolutely. However' date=' often two or more skills are useful in resolving the same issue, for example a medical issue where your SS: Microbiology and KS: Genetics can assist your PS: Medical Diagnostics will require your levels to be allocated between the skills, where a higher INT raises all three. I think the issue is that skill levels in general are overpriced compared to the related characteristics, but that's not this thread's focus.[/quote']

 

Agreed - I think characteristics are too cheap, but that's a perspective derived from style of play.

 

Emphasis added. Here' date=' the GM is substituting for having an issue spelled out in the rules. Some groups may not need this extra discussion because they already use the tools in practice. Many groups don't need pre-fab powers or gear because they are comfortable building their own, and others don't need pre-fab adversaries. Ultimately, some groups could just write their own rules and don't need a game system at all. However, I think there are enough groups that would value rules for more robust, detailed resolution mechanics for non-combat challenges that there is some merit in publishing these.[/quote']

 

No, it's the GM doing his job. The GM is supposed to provide feedback to the players - not just in social situations, but in combat as well. I never say to my players "It is 30.5 metres to the villain, that's -6 to your roll". I say "You don't think you can hit him from here" or "You'd have to be pretty lucky to hit him from here". I don't force them to make an INT roll to estimate difference - they can request one if they want to take time to get an accurate estimate - but what they see, what they feel ... that's information their PCs have and therefore the players should too.

 

I don't see the example as PS vs KS. The Master Chef has a PS' date=' and so does the Sandwich Server. Under the current model, I think they are two different PS's. The Master Chef could not cater a party of 500, and the Sandwich Server won't be serving up Lobster Thermador and Creme Brulee any time soon.[/quote']

 

Really? Most master chefs are also master caterers (though to be specific, catering has little to nothing to do with cooking: my wife used to work in catering back in the day - it consists of delivering food that someone else has prepared). Error and tears lies down the path of trying to define precisely what the outer boundaries of a skill are: they are by nature diffuse. It's one reason that attempts at "detailed, realistic" skill systems often produce risible results. Common sense is a better guide.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Ah' date=' but I would. As I said, semantics. A player who tried to play against his character's skills and complications is unlikely to get far.[/quote']

 

Anyone who's ever watched the Paladin look the other way while his less noble teammates applied a torch to the prisoner's groin might feel differently. Great tactics - taking the best modifier to achieve the desired results - but poor role playing for the so-called "heroes".

 

The same with dragons. I have actually had players decide to tackle a dragon' date=' despite warnings of their "huge 'orrible teeth" secure in the knowledge that I'm a bit of a softy as a GM and I wouldn't kill off all their beloved characters. I didn't - one survived the initial assault and fled while the dragon feasted on the remainder.[/quote']

 

However, I sincerely doubt the players were in any way left with the impression that defeating the dragon was required to succeed in their objectives, just as the heroes who have progressed well beyond the "goblin raiding party as a threat" stage are not required to deal with goblin raiding parties to succeed in their in-game objectives. We scale the level of challenge to the ability of the PC's.

 

If you are not using it' date=' how do you save time by downgrading it? Adding an extra combat system does nothing to simplify: it only complicates.[/quote']

 

Anything that adds choice adds complexity as we have more choices to make. Every optional combat maneuver adds complexity. Removing half the powers would reduce complexity. We could reduce the game to the bare minimum of complexity - describe the result you want and flip a coin. Head, you succeed. Adding complexity is desirable for some gamers and undesirable for others. The same game system will be described as overly complex by some and lacking sufficient choice/flexibility by others.

 

In a game of international diplomacy, just because combat is not the focus (and we want a very robust system for resolving social conflicts, as that will be the focus) this does not mean it will not occur. Assassinations or duels may well be part of the diplomatic/political landscape. However, they are not intended to dominate the game. So, in this game, it might be desirable for the duel to be resolved with five minutes of description and a single opposed die roll, rather than a series of fencing maneuvers and combat rolls which take up over an hour of game time. A resolution system is still required, but one as detailed and robust as the current combat system is, for the purposes of this particular game, not desired.

 

In my current game' date=' combat occurs in a clear minority of sessions: social interaction and skill use is more important. But we've never felt any need for extra rules - Hero system has a simple, subtle and highly flexible system, straight out of the box. Adding more rules isn't necessarily going to improve it, any more than adding extra rules to Go would improve that game.[/quote']

 

At what point did we achieve the perfect level of rules? I assume it was not Champions 1st Edition. Did Champions II and III add enough? Did we reach Nirvana when 4th edition came out and moved Hero to a universal system, or were the additional rules in 5th Edition and/or 6th Edition valuable? Is APG useless in that it adds more rules to a game that already has precisely the right balance of rules? Or did we reach the apex with APG, and APG II should be shelved?

 

Ignoring the differences between editions, the existing rules you value and/or non-existing rules you would value will certainly differ from those I value, and those another group might value. Hero is about options. I don't think we go wrong by adding options. I also think we win when we minimize added complexity. Having scaling systems would ideally use similar systems at each level of detail. Ideally, a "high level detail" system would match the combat mechanics as closely as possible, moving down the chain to a multiple skill roll system, a single opposed skill roll system and a single skill roll against some defined difficulty level system. In other words, I'd prefer application of existing systems to new areas over brand new systems. But I see more options as a positive, not a negative. Their existence does not force anyone who does not value them to use them.

 

But there are times - in a single game' date=' even within a single evening's play, in a single game - where you move back and forth between those levels. The current system does that well.[/quote']

 

Having more options would not preclude moving between them as dictated by what is best for the game.

 

You could' date=' but that adds a level of extra complication I don't need and don't want. Hero already has a combat system. I don't want two incompatible ones, nor do I want to build my own game system. If I did, I would have done it already.[/quote']

 

Two points here. First,I don't think the fact that you, or I, or whoever would not use or want a specific option invalidates it as potentially useful to the wider audience. It seems like Sean, from his initial post, might value a more robust skill resolution system. Hero provides options - it is not, and should not be, tailored to one specific game group or GM's preferences. It should provide options. Second, as indicated above, I would prefer building out with the existing systems to having incompatible systems. However, we already have the incompatible skill resolution and combat resolution systems. Should one be changed to mirror the other more closely, or is their incompatibility an exception to your blanket desire to have no incompatible systems?

 

True. Irrelevant to the discussion' date=' but true.[/quote']

 

The present choices for combat resolution are "detailed, lengthy resolution with Speed chart, relative DEX, OCV, DCV, maneuvers, defenses, stun damage and BOD damage" (and that ignores exotic attacks) or GM fiat. More choices could be added without damaging the structure of the game. And I believe more choices could similarly be added to skill resolution.

 

Agreed - I think characteristics are too cheap' date=' but that's a perspective derived from style of play.[/quote']

 

Beyond the topic, but assessing whether characteristics are too cheap or skill levels too expensive requires comparison against other potential uses of the same points. Regardless, we seem to agree the balance is off, and this thread isn't really about the point costs anyway.

 

Really? Most master chefs are also master caterers (though to be specific' date=' catering has little to nothing to do with cooking: my wife used to work in catering back in the day - it consists of delivering food that someone else has prepared). Error and tears lies down the path of trying to define precisely what the outer boundaries of a skill are: they are by nature diffuse. It's one reason that attempts at "detailed, realistic" skill systems often produce risible results. Common sense is a better guide.[/quote']

 

Here we get into another of the most common debates in the area of skills. Does PS: Chef provide catering, or do most master chefs have sufficient experience that they have both PS: Chef and PS: Catering? Do they have skills as "Chef", or do they have subskills such as "European Cooking (or "French Cuisine", "German Cuisine" and "Italian Cuisine") and "Asian Cooking" (or "Korean Cuisine", Vietnamese Cuisine" and "Szechwan Cuisine"), or subskills in appetizers, main courses and desserts (or even more fine subskills within those categories)?

 

The need for granularity depends largely on the game, another aspect of the customizable nature of the toolkit. I would suggest that, in most games, PS: Chef is quite adequate to justify that MarvelMan, in his secret identity, owns and operates a chain of restaurants for which he is the creator of the signature dishes. But others might require he have PS: Chef, PS: Restaurateur (knowing how to cook doesn't mean you know how to run the business) and Inventor (to create new signature dishes - knowing how to cook doesn't mean you can go beyond existing recipes), plus Contacts with a variety of business advisors and Followers (restaurant managers) to keep the chain running smoothly. That's considerable overkill for most games, at least in my view, but may be far too little granularity if (for some reason) the game focuses around competing chefs and restaurants.

 

An unlikely game, to be sure, but Law and Order Hero breaking down categories of law, or St. Elsewhere Hero breaking medical skills down seems a bit more reasonable. Many science fiction shows have had episodes revolve around scientific research and/or medical crises. "Make a roll to determine success or failure" doesn't really capture the same flavour. Guidance in the rules on how to capture that flavour could easily be ignored by those not interested in such scenarios (or who have developed their own approach to them) while being quite valuable to those interested in such scenarios, but not prepared to develop their own rules and approaches for such challenges.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Anyone who's ever watched the Paladin look the other way while his less noble teammates applied a torch to the prisoner's groin might feel differently. Great tactics - taking the best modifier to achieve the desired results - but poor role playing for the so-called "heroes".

 

Any GM worth his dice will fix that right smart, just as he should respond to a "Paladin" who killed kiddies for the Xp. That's nothing to do with social interaction, merely GM'ing complications and character description.

 

Anything that adds choice adds complexity as we have more choices to make. Every optional combat maneuver adds complexity. Removing half the powers would reduce complexity. We could reduce the game to the bare minimum of complexity - describe the result you want and flip a coin. Head' date=' you succeed. Adding complexity is desirable for some gamers and undesirable for others. The same game system will be described as overly complex by some and lacking sufficient choice/flexibility by others.[/quote']

 

True. But you also get diminishing returns. 5E and 6E are already flirting with that limit, IMO.

 

In a game of international diplomacy' date=' just because combat is not the focus (and we want a very robust system for resolving social conflicts, as that will be the focus) this does not mean it will not occur. Assassinations or duels may well be part of the diplomatic/political landscape. However, they are not intended to dominate the game. So, in this game, it might be desirable for the duel to be resolved with five minutes of description and a single opposed die roll, rather than a series of fencing maneuvers and combat rolls which take up over an hour of game time. A resolution system is still required, but one as detailed and robust as the current combat system is, for the purposes of this particular game, not desired[/quote'].

 

If someone wants such a game, they are free to design it. If they can find a player to play it with, more power to them. The chances of it being of interest to the vast majority of herodom? I'm charitable, so I'll just say vanishingly small.

There's a disconnect here. I'm not saying that if you think such a thing might be useful, you shouldn't do it, or it'd be badwrongfun if you did. Just pointing out that it's a very specialist idea that isn't going to get any traction (nor should it really) in the hero rulebooks. That it would add bulk and complexity without adding any real value. People could already drop standard combat for a simplified combat system if they wanted: several suggestions - including one from me - have been posted here. Nobody I know has ever used them, though.

 

At what point did we achieve the perfect level of rules? I assume it was not Champions 1st Edition. Did Champions II and III add enough? Did we reach Nirvana when 4th edition came out and moved Hero to a universal system' date=' or were the additional rules in 5th Edition and/or 6th Edition valuable? Is APG useless in that it adds more rules to a game that already has precisely the right balance of rules? Or did we reach the apex with APG, and APG II should be shelved?[/quote']

 

4th edition, when the current system took shape. In the years since then skills have essentially been unchanged, part from seduction becoming charm They are, perhaps, the part of the rules which have changed least from the original Champions.

 

Ignoring the differences between editions' date=' the existing rules you value and/or non-existing rules you would value will certainly differ from those I value, and those another group might value. Hero is about options. I don't think we go wrong by adding options. I also think we win when we minimize added complexity. [/quote']

 

Agree with this.

 

Having scaling systems would ideally use similar systems at each level of detail. Ideally' date=' a "high level detail" system would match the combat mechanics as closely as possible, moving down the chain to a multiple skill roll system, a single opposed skill roll system and a single skill roll against some defined difficulty level system. [/quote']

 

Read this, recognize the words .. can't understand it. "Ideally"? "Match the combat system ...closely"? In the name of god, why? Is this some kind of platonic thing, like the "ideal system"? I see no such requirement.

 

In other words' date=' I'd prefer application of existing systems to new areas over brand new systems. But I see more options as a positive, not a negative. Their existence does not force anyone who does not value them to use them.[/quote']

 

Up to a point. Beyond that point more options disintegrates into a bland mélange. You no longer have a game system - you have a selection of rules from which you can assemble a game that somewhat resembles other games assembled from the same menu.

 

Two points here. First' date='I don't think the fact that you, or I, or whoever would not use or want a specific option invalidates it as potentially useful to the wider audience. It seems like Sean, from his initial post, might value a more robust skill resolution system. Hero provides options - it is not, and should not be, tailored to one specific game group or GM's preferences. It should provide options. Second, as indicated above, I would prefer building out with the existing systems to having incompatible systems. However, we already have the incompatible skill resolution and combat resolution systems. Should one be changed to mirror the other more closely, or is their incompatibility an exception to your blanket desire to have no incompatible systems?[/quote']

 

I'm not terribly fussed by compatible/incompatible systems. I am not really that interested in the philosophical niceties at all, to be honest. I am interested in mechanics - and most of all, I am interested in: do they perform smoothly, the task that is required of them? What I don't want are two incompatible systems for doing the same thing.

 

I would like to simplify the combat system though. Indeed, I have already made some small house rules of my own to that exact end. Simplification, if it can be done without significant loss of utility is good, IMO. Going in the other direction - adding complexity, needs to meet a much stricter standard: at least from me.

 

The present choices for combat resolution are "detailed' date=' lengthy resolution with Speed chart, relative DEX, OCV, DCV, maneuvers, defenses, stun damage and BOD damage" (and that ignores exotic attacks) or GM fiat. More choices could be added without damaging the structure of the game. And I believe more choices could similarly be added to skill resolution.[/quote']

 

Add away: that's what house rules are for. If it looks like a remotely playable system, I'd certainly examine it - as I noted, I like looking at mechanics!

But in reality, this discussion will end up the same place it did the last two times we had this discussion: nobody is going to draft such a system, because nobody is going to go to that much effort for a system they already know they won't use themselves. It's a theoretical discussion.

 

Here we get into another of the most common debates in the area of skills. Does PS: Chef provide catering' date=' or do most master chefs have sufficient experience that they have both PS: Chef and PS: Catering? Do they have skills as "Chef", or do they have subskills such as "European Cooking (or "French Cuisine", "German Cuisine" and "Italian Cuisine") and "Asian Cooking" (or "Korean Cuisine", Vietnamese Cuisine" and "Szechwan Cuisine"), or subskills in appetizers, main courses and desserts (or even more fine subskills within those categories)? [/quote']

 

Right. This is an argument that has no real answer, beyond: it's a matter of taste. Steve Long has written (and proven with some of his characters) that he likes highly detailed skill lists - that it helps him get a better mental picture of the character. As a GM, and a player, I dislike that - to me it's usually a waste of space and a waste of points, that complicates and obscures. A character with one skill is clearly shooting pretty low. A character with 114, is a bit rich for my taste. Not sayin' it's wrong, just saying' it ain't for me. Fortunately, however the skill system we have accommodates both those extremes. Granularity, in this regard, is therefore a non-issue.

 

An unlikely game' date=' to be sure, but Law and Order Hero breaking down categories of law, or St. Elsewhere Hero breaking medical skills down seems a bit more reasonable. Many science fiction shows have had episodes revolve around scientific research and/or medical crises. "Make a roll to determine success or failure" doesn't really capture the same flavour. Guidance in the rules on how to capture that flavour could easily be ignored by those not interested in such scenarios (or who have developed their own approach to them) while being quite valuable to those interested in such scenarios, but not prepared to develop their own rules and approaches for such challenges.[/quote']

 

Right. Games with a "resolve a research problem" cry out to break the big problem down into smaller problems, that can then form the spine of an adventure. That's how it's structured in the TV series or written fiction, that you allude to: find out X that allows Y, that lets you solve Z. But that brings us back to actual roleplaying: you don't need a specific skill system, or even more granularity to do precisely this. You're right "Make a roll to determine success or failure" doesn't really capture the same flavour (in fact, it captures no flavour at all). But then "Make 6 rolls in succession to determine success or failure" doesn't really capture any flavour, either. The flavour is in the doing, not the rolling. The rolls are only meaningful if they are attached to an action ("I stab him in the face!" or "I go to the library to see if they have anything on Fleetworzels"). And that already works well with the system we have.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Mad Skills

 

The OP got me working on a "bare essentials" tool-kitted Hero I thought of some time ago, but never really worked up. This is just a fast and loose brainstorm extrapolating from 6e1-57 "Toolkitting: Changing The Way Skill Rolls Work." Its less granular, and I have not worked out cost structures, but it fits a character-narrative style of "real world" or "television drama" heroic play. I'm dubious about whether it would scale well for higher levels play, but it might. Using the AV/RV dichotomy which mirrors the CV system everthing except damage/defenses is streamlined into a single mechanic.

 

1. All primary characteristics have a base of AV 3 and can be bought up to the predetermined limit. Lets assume 8 (24/3=8) is the "heroic threshold," with 9 and 10 being "legendary."
   
2. Alternatively, you could purchase the characteristics normally and merely convert the characteristic roll using the AV/RV system.
   
3. Lifting as a strength roll with the RV set by the weight being lifted.
   
4. HTH Base Damage would need a chart, but could be extrapolated from here: 3 = 2d6, 4=2.5d6, 5 = 3d6, 6 = 3.5d6, etc.
   
5. Grabs as Strength AV modified by skill levels or maneuver bonuses (maneuver added strenth/5 equals modifier) vs. opponents ST as RV (modified by the same factors, of course).
   
6. Initiative can be handled via numerous systems. One would be highest DX + LR with 1d6 tie-breakers. I use a playing card based system.
   
7. Handle presence attacks as presence rolls modified by relevant levels. The RV can be presence or ego, also modified by relevant skill levels, resistance, etc.
   
8. Stunning, Option 1: simply use the character's Body score in lieu of Constitution.
   
9. Stunning, Option 2: if the stun exceeds the character's Body score require a Consitution roll to avoid stunning.
   
10. Movement Option: you purchase "Athletics," a skill that might have sub-categories for running, jumping, swimming, etc to exceed base values with penalties the higher you go.
    
11. Chase option: abstract chases using opposed rolls or an NPCs athletics value as the RV. "I need to get far enough ahead of him to knock a trashcan into his path as I go over the fence..."
    
12. Poisons, drugs, disease and the like can be given an AV that works against Con or Ego (depending on which is relevant) as the RV. Or you could make Con rolls against the poisons value as the RV.
    
13. Skills would theoretically be open ended value wise, but to simplify assigning difficulty and modifiers, skill values should probably use similar ranges as CVs.
    
14. In general, an AV5 = 12-, AV6 = 13-, AV7 = 14-, AV8 = 15-, etc. A 20- roughly equates to AV 13.
    
15. Everyman 8- skills translate to AV2 and would include "athletics."
    

I'm working up some characters based on the above principes.