I like long skill lists, it makes it possible to have a wider range of character diversity.

I'm glad to see yet another pronounced difference between me and that asshole  JB, with me, as usual, on the right side of the issue.

Quote from: WetbackI like long skill lists, it makes it possible to have a wider range of character diversity.

Interesting hypothesis.  Personally I prefer the skill umbrella approach, like that found in Unknown Armies, Over the edge, Risus etc.

QuoteI'm glad to see yet another pronounced difference between me and that asshole  JB, with me, as usual, on the right side of the issue.

Why do you do it?  Why?  You've shown on occasion that you have a brain, you're enthusiastic about the hobby and life in general, but then this schizophrenic side erupts and your the biggest dick on the site.  Do people ripping the piss on an internet forum affect you that much?  are you that sad?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

I really like Fallout's skill set.  It's short and sweet, but gives you the opportunity to specialize without going over the deep-end.

My present system is pretty heavily inspired by it.  The list is different, and I think I'll bump up the number of tags one or two, but it was definitely an inspiration.

Quote from: StumpydaveInteresting hypothesis.  Personally I prefer the skill umbrella approach, like that found in Unknown Armies, Over the edge, Risus etc.



Why do you do it?  Why?  You've shown on occasion that you have a brain, you're enthusiastic about the hobby and life in general, but then this schizophrenic side erupts and your the biggest dick on the site.  Do people ripping the piss on an internet forum affect you that much?  are you that sad?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

Well, JB made a crack that wernt over the fucking line and is unforgiveable.

BTW, when you can bitch at people for slandering me in threads I'm not even involved in, you can bitch at me for slamming on people. Until then, shut the fuck up.

Quote from: droogYes, and the reaon for breaking them down seems to be my #1 above.

Ah, I missed that on the previous page.  Very true -- people wanted to see exactly what a typical "Praxian" and "Nomad" could do.  In fact, there's still vigorous discussion of this very topic going on over at the HQ-rules discussion group.  This also goes a long way toward supporting what Nox was suggesting -- players like to see a (reasonably) exhaustive list of what their characters can do.  I don't really need to point this out, but I like to encourage him to continue making sensible posts instead of deteriorating into his typical stream of froth.

QuoteBut why not three keywords and ten extra abilities as per the rules?

Per one of the three methods of creating characters according to the rules, sure.  Different strokes and all that.  What I'm doing with my kids right now is to just have them define the Homeland and Occupation keywords, then ask a series of standard questions to flesh things out -- "Name three things you're good at", "Name one thing you're really bad at", "Tell me something about your character that nobody else knows", etc.*  It works pretty much just as well as any of the other methods in the rules.

!i!

*By the way, where did this method come from?  I recall it being attributed to someone in the RPG community some years back, but it seems likely that it predates RPGs.

Quote from: JimBobOzAm I alone? Is there something I'm missing? Do we have to detail every last bit of a character to be able to play them? Or what?

You aren't alone.

But a recent distinction I make in my homebrew is between main characters and others. I personally don't think a detailed character sheet (including a big list of skills) is a problem if it is limited to main heroes and maybe a few chief villains.

My problem is if everything has to be statted that way, making the GM's job a fucking nightmare. Stat blocks in D&D, Hero and similar games give me nose-bleed, especially when it reaches higher power level.

Since there haven't been easy, satisfactory solutions for me so far, I've shortened list of stats (including skills) in my games but I am not giving up in finding solutions.

Quote from: WetbackBTW, when you can bitch at people for slandering me in threads I'm not even involved in, you can bitch at me for slamming on people. Until then, shut the fuck up.

Would you mind showing me where I've (that's me personally) slandered anyone - whether they're involved in a thread or not.  Or indeed where I've slammed on you for bitching at people - in the singular - as opposed to your usual generalising rants.

Till then, shut the fuck up yourself.

:eek: I'm fairly new to this forum.  I noticed some interesting threads so I decided to join, but...are there no mods here?  The above stuff certainly takes away from any productive conversation.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI agree with the original sentiment, but this complicates things a little. If you have 300 possible items, this can have the effect of telling the player "if you don't have item X, you can't do Y". Like, if you don't have "stunt driving", you can't do a "bootlegger turn", even if you have "driving". It's this sort of thing that encourages long character sheets and having to tend to ridiculous numbers of skills in character creation and development.

That's very true, and what I found when running Rolemaster years ago, or GURPS more recently. If your character doesn't have the skill, they're basicaly useless in that area, they've very little chance of success. So that encourages big-arsed long lists of skills for characters.

It's why in d4-d4 I just said, "everyone has an ordinary level of ability, you just note down the stuff which is better or worse than ordinary." Most, but not all players will respond to that with shorter traits lists. It's also because it's a comparative system, rather than roll-under, so that it doesn't matter if your brawling is ordinary if the other guy's brawling is ordinary, too - you only have to be as able as the other guy. Some payers of course still went for having just a level or two in a shitload of traits - then whinged that they weren't really good at anything. But hey you can't please everyone! I figure that some people like long skill lists - makes them feel confident to see the big list of things their character can do.

So I guess the key here is "generous defaults." That helps keep the skill or trait lists shorter.

I think it's also a matter of how you make your character. If you make your character by yourself, naturally you'll be tempted to try for a little bit of everything. "Shit, my warrior better be able to find traps... and who's gonna patch his wounds? And look after his horse?" But if you make the character in the group, then the thief can handle the trap-finding, the cleric can handle the healing, and so on. Several specialists work better than several generalists...

Quote from: grubman:eek: I'm fairly new to this forum.  I noticed some interesting threads so I decided to join, but...are there no mods here?  The above stuff certainly takes away from any productive conversation.

See therpgsite new constitution.

You'll find that most people are reasonably restrained. Most people aren't calling each-other cocksmocks and so on, we just call each-other on our bullshit. Don't think of it as a little rpg.net, think of it as sitting around your game table talking to your fellow gamers. Sometimes, someone will say, "bullshit, man!" and no-one will throw them out, they'll just say, "oh? why? And pass the cheetos."

Please take any comments on therpgsite moderation or lack of it to the Help Desk forum, don't derail good rpg discussion threads like this one.

I like broad skills, and those types of skills tend to result in smaller skill lists.  Broader skills more accurately reflect the way I like to play.  For instance, if I have a character who flies aircraft, I don't want to have to pick a separate skill for each individual model of aircraft he knows how to fly.  I want to write something like Pilot Aircraft on my character sheet and be done with it.

For me, it leads to more cinematic play.  Narrow skill lists restrict that type of play IMO.  With a narrow and specific skill list, Luke wouldn't have been able to fly a fighter and destroy the Death Star because he didn't have the Incom X-Wing Pilot Skill.  He only had Pilot T-16 Skyhopper.  With broad skills it just becomes Pilot Fighter-type Thingie, and you get on with the game.

Quote from: JimBobOzPlease take any comments on therpgsite moderation or lack of it to the Help Desk forum, don't derail good rpg discussion threads like this one.

ohhh...K, so, I can call you rude as hell when someone asks a simple question, and you won't be offended?  Thanks a lot.:rolleyes:

Quote from: grubmanohhh...K, so, I can call you rude as hell when someone asks a simple question, and you won't be offended?  Thanks a lot.:rolleyes:

You're off-topic. Please stop crapping on my thread, and go discuss this stuff in Help Desk.

Quote from: droogBy the way, JB, if you're balking at the expanded keywords in HQ, have you considered using the keywords in a looser way as broad abilities? If you do it that way, you don't have to write down all abilities from the keywords; only the ones that are split out for raising.

Sorry, missed this earlier. I've considered this approach, yes. Honestly though I'm still not entirely confident with running the thing, since I only played once or twice and that was a few years ago. I feel I need some play experience before I can get a good handle on the thing, it's usually best to play it RAW before messing with it. And as for playing it, well, it's the same as any other game, everyone wants to play, no-one wants to GM!

The magic number is 30.