Quote from: Rincewind1;715629The "issue" with those broad skills is that they are, well, sometimes too broad - a skill like "An Officer and a Gentleman" can be basically claimed to be usable in every situation, from a firing competition to cake carving. So they work, as long as the game is more narrative than strict.

At the same time skills can be broken down too far. Into giant lists. Like say palladiums megaversal system. I personally like a more happy medium. Which is admittedly different to different people. I think savage worlds does a nice job of that. Then I really like a core mechanic that's straight across the board. Like I believe Traveller has espoused upon, the stat + skill + die roll vs target number. I think most skills should be able to be attempted without having the skill per-say. So the example earlier of free climbing the sandy cliff. Anyone should be able to try. But the skilled individual is gonna be a lot better. I do think their are exceptions to this as well. Certain skills should not be able to be used unskilled. Things like say repairing a fusion reactor.

Quote from: jhkim;715614In practice, I think they tend to come down to either the mostly same as narrow skills (like CORPS) or mostly the same as broad skills. I personally prefer the mostly-broad with options for specialization, which is a fair description of FATE.

Me too.  Specialization allows for differentiation, but large skill lists can easily slow down the game as the GM has to figure out which skill is applicable.

Broad skills with specialization is kind of the best of both worlds to me - the GM can have a brief list of things to call for, but players can specialize to differentiate all they want without increasing GM load.

My general gauge for "how broad" is that skills should be "complete."  That is, any given skill should be usable without requiring an additional skill to be effective.  And beyond that, if it doesn't make sense for someone to be good at X but totally suck at Y, they're probably the same skill.

Another good guideline from Fate is:  Does it make sense to be known as the guy?  If so, it probably makes sense to have it as a skill.  If not, roll it into something else or don't worry about it.

Of course, I tend to be a minimalist in most things, so that bias certainly enters into my opinion

Quote from: Rincewind1;715631Well, I've played a bit of Cold City and Wolsung (Wolsung has something like Aspects from Fate in it, to make a long explanation short). The problems I've encountered so far (from player's perspective, I'm starting a campaign tomorrow set in Fallen London on Fate) is this:

1) The GM is too "lenient"

2) The GM is too scared of being the lenient GM

I find that in Fate, at least, the fact that uses of aspects is tied to Fate Points does a pretty good job of fixing the first problem, and that works to pretty well solve the second problem as well.

The bigger 'leniency' problems in Fate or just overall setting the opposition too weak, or putting out weak Compels that don't actually create complications, and so act as free Fate points.

Quote from: jhkim;7156141) A tree system or skill grouping system, where you have broad skills at a fixed level, and then differentiate specialties only for certain important cases. These systems has some extra overhead, but allow you to dial between broad skills and narrow skills.

This is exactly what the D6 system does.  There are attributes, which contain all skills, then skills, then specializations beneath that.  So it goes from untrained to super-focused.  All with the same resolution mechanic.

MiniSix even has a variant that lets you decide which attribute a given skill falls under.  So if you're a dexterous swordsman, or even an intellectual one, you can anchor it to one of those.

Quote from: Ronin;715634At the same time skills can be broken down too far. Into giant lists. Like say palladiums megaversal system. I personally like a more happy medium. Which is admittedly different to different people. I think savage worlds does a nice job of that. Then I really like a core mechanic that's straight across the board.

SW does a decent job of it as well, except all the TNs are 4.  So there's less utility in emphasizing a skill.

Quote from: Ronin;715634At the same time skills can be broken down too far. Into giant lists. Like say palladiums megaversal system. I personally like a more happy medium. Which is admittedly different to different people. I think savage worlds does a nice job of that. Then I really like a core mechanic that's straight across the board. Like I believe Traveller has espoused upon, the stat + skill + die roll vs target number. I think most skills should be able to be attempted without having the skill per-say. So the example earlier of free climbing the sandy cliff. Anyone should be able to try. But the skilled individual is gonna be a lot better. I do think their are exceptions to this as well. Certain skills should not be able to be used unskilled. Things like say repairing a fusion reactor.

Oh, agreed. As I said, I'm going to give Fate a fair try (as I'd say it's pretty well tailored to what Fallen London's about), just pointing out the problems that mechanic arises.

Quote from: robiswrong;715639I find that in Fate, at least, the fact that uses of aspects is tied to Fate Points does a pretty good job of fixing the first problem, and that works to pretty well solve the second problem as well.

The bigger 'leniency' problems in Fate or just overall setting the opposition too weak, or putting out weak Compels that don't actually create complications, and so act as free Fate points.

I'll remember that. I feel a bit queezy about Compels (since I don't want to just force people to do stuff), but then again - can always use them mostly as "YOU FAIL" device.

Quote from: Rincewind1;715645I'll remember that. I feel a bit queezy about Compels (since I don't want to just force people to do stuff), but then again - can always use them mostly as "YOU FAIL" device.

Compels are supposed to be more about complications, and less about forcing actions.  And remember, they can always buy out of them, unless you just go crazy overboard and constantly compel.  The best compels are the ones where they really have to decide if they want that fate point or not.

One thing you can do is if you ever notice people getting themselves in trouble due to their character (ideally an aspect), consider it a self-Compel, and give 'em a fate point.

But yeah, Fate is definitely a game where you have to get used to wearing the "I'm an asshole" hat more than the typical "neutral referee" hat.  Your players should give you the "you're a dick" look at least once per session.

Quote from: The Traveller;715576I think you're talking about two different things here, one is "systems with lots of skills", and the other is "binary systems where if you don't have the skill you can't attempt a task".

Got it right here.  One reason I like GURPS' Default Skill system.  You're good with a broadsword?  Then you're not going to be clueless if all you have to hand is a mace or a shortsword.  You're good at building and maintaining electronic security systems?  You won't suck, then, at figuring out why the computer won't switch on.  And so forth.

Longer lists are going to require more fiddling around from the player and will take longer, but you get more customizeability. If there are premade character archetypes (or classes with lots of built-in OCC skills) these can mitigate setup time a bit.  

One thing I like about longer lists, is how they handle specialized tasks with a separate success chance base instead of a huge difficulty penalty. In a short skill list, specialized tasks will be performed with a common skill but at a very high difficulty, meaning they need big skill point investments, or may even be limited to higher level. So in something like D20 you couldn't be a 1st level 'fusion plant repairman' - not without fusion plant repair being equally easy for any character with whatever generic skill this comes under, say a Mechanics type skill. This sort of thing helps avoid the 'level treadmill' effect as well.

Quote from: jhkim;715614There are two main alternate approaches that I think of.

1) A tree system or skill grouping system, where you have broad skills at a fixed level, and then differentiate specialties only for certain important cases. These systems has some extra overhead, but allow you to dial between broad skills and narrow skills.

In practice, I think they tend to come down to either the mostly same as narrow skills (like CORPS) or mostly the same as broad skills. I personally prefer the mostly-broad with options for specialization, which is a fair description of FATE.

2) Player-defined skills

These include like what Kaiu describes for 13th Age - previously used in Over the Edge, Unknown Armies, and many others. Rather than a fixed skill list, the player defines a category (like a career) for his skills. The typical issue that I see is that jobs often involve differing levels of skill. All three of "Park Ranger", "Police Detective", and "Army Sniper" will have skill with guns. However, suppose that three characters are all equally expert in each of those fields. Should they be rolling the same for shooting?

If you say no, and that you have to adjust the skill level to reflect how central shooting is to the job - then that means that there are all sorts of adjustments and decisions that have to be made in play about how well each skill applies.

two other alternate approaches:

3) one big list of skills, in alphabetical order, a la BRP. This looks horribly unwieldy but it works because all the skills are in one place and "seek time" for individual skills is fast. I'm not keen but it's a valid option.

4) the WFRP/Everway approach
- you have an unchanging top level of attributes (granted, WFRP has many more attributes than Everway)
- you have skills beneath which grant special permissions to use those attributes in a special way.
This is far and away my favourite, because
i. the list is granular but not too long that people will forget some of the components (working memory of 7 +/- 2 and all that)
ii. the numbers up top don't change, and they're all high up on the character sheet
iii. the activities covered by attributes are broad, but for "really special stuff" the permissions granted by skills comes in (e.g. "specialist weapon")
iv. players then have only to manage a relatively small number of individualised skills (again, working memory).

#4 is slighly broken in that skills are usually used to negotiate bonuses in WFRP to common rolls, rather than being a binary you can / cannot perform this specialised action, but with a bit of thought that can be fixed.

Quote from: Ravenswing;715710Got it right here.  One reason I like GURPS' Default Skill system.  You're good with a broadsword?  Then you're not going to be clueless if all you have to hand is a mace or a shortsword.  You're good at building and maintaining electronic security systems?  You won't suck, then, at figuring out why the computer won't switch on.  And so forth.

I'm a GURPS fan myself and yeah I like the defaulting system. Broadsword/Shortsword, Spear/Staff...it makes sense and helps broaden the PCs' capabilities list.

While the GURPS skill list is...huge, it helps that lots of the skills are only for certain tech groups pretty much; your electronic security/computer guy's skills frex plain aren't available to a TL 4 swashbuckler say.

Quote from: The Ent;715719While the GURPS skill list is...huge, it helps that lots of the skills are only for certain tech groups pretty much; your electronic security/computer guy's skills frex plain aren't available to a TL 4 swashbuckler say.

Pretty much.  A limited run-Firefly campaign aside, it's been decades since I've run anything but fantasy.  There are several dozen skills that aren't found in my campaign, so I did up a list of allowable skills, available to the players.

Quote from: Ravenswing;715731Pretty much.  A limited run-Firefly campaign aside, it's been decades since I've run anything but fantasy.  There are several dozen skills that aren't found in my campaign, so I did up a list of allowable skills, available to the players.

I really like the GURPS system but this kind of thing is my biggest gripe about it-having to filter the basic books into appropriate lists of ads, disads, and skills per genre or campaign. Its difficult to just start playing.

Quote from: Ravenswing;715731Pretty much.  A limited run-Firefly campaign aside, it's been decades since I've run anything but fantasy.  There are several dozen skills that aren't found in my campaign, so I did up a list of allowable skills, available to the players.

I get that a lot when PCs look at the list of skills...and I need to assure them that 80% of what they see are dropdowns, or dropdowns of dropdowns.

Quote from: Ravenswing;715731Pretty much.  A limited run-Firefly campaign aside, it's been decades since I've run anything but fantasy.  There are several dozen skills that aren't found in my campaign, so I did up a list of allowable skills, available to the players.

That does simplify stuff a bunch, yeah. The number of skills available to modern (or futuristic, or, God help us all, martial artist superheroes!) is way bigger than that available to fantasy/medieval (or ancient, rennaissance, stone age, whatevs) guys.

Of course though, there's the spells. Personally I've considered using Powers for magic, rather than using the spell skill system, allthough, well, Powers adds rather to the "front-loaded complexity" problem and generally means that say a 125 pts mage will be less than impressive most likely :-/ But I haven't entirely given up on that idea, still. Allthough I like the standard spell system just fine, it's great for a ton of wizard concepts. But, the player better have an idea of what kinda wizard he wants to play.

Quote from: ExploderwizardI really like the GURPS system but this kind of thing is my biggest gripe about it-having to filter the basic books into appropriate lists of ads, disads, and skills per genre or campaign. Its difficult to just start playing.

I can see that.

Templates helps a lot with this problem though, it helps a lot at "don't worry about all that, what your PC needs to work as intended is Broadsword 14+, Shield 14+, (etc).

Quote from: smiorgan;7157184) the WFRP/Everway approach
- you have an unchanging top level of attributes (granted, WFRP has many more attributes than Everway)
- you have skills beneath which grant special permissions to use those attributes in a special way.
This is far and away my favourite, (...)

#4 is slighly broken in that skills are usually used to negotiate bonuses in WFRP to common rolls, rather than being a binary you can / cannot perform this specialised action, but with a bit of thought that can be fixed.

Care to explain a bit more what you mean?
Would you rather have the pickpocket succeed automatically with his binary skill, without any roll?

When I read WHFRP first I disliked a bit that skills didn't have numbers, and couldn't be raised individually.
It took me a while to see and appreciate that the skill bonus was in fact the attribute bonus in the advance scheme of the career that gave you the skill, and that this broader bonus mirrored the effect that Ravenswing likes about GURPS skills.
Entering a career that allows you to learn pickpocket and raise Dex makes you better at all tasks related to movement, and a career that allows specialist weapon morning star and raises WS makes you better at all hand weapons.

It has become one of my favourite skill systems, the other one being the "secondary skill" from AD&D/"groups" from Whitehack (backgrounds in Next?).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;715736I really like the GURPS system but this kind of thing is my biggest gripe about it-having to filter the basic books into appropriate lists of ads, disads, and skills per genre or campaign. Its difficult to just start playing.

Quote from: LordVreeg;715747I get that a lot when PCs look at the list of skills...and I need to assure them that 80% of what they see are dropdowns, or dropdowns of dropdowns.

Both are valid points, and my response boils down to this: GURPS is not a game system for the casual gamer.  If a gamer doesn't want to put any work into learning a system, it's not for him.  The fellow who wants to drift into a game and create a character in 90 seconds, it's not for him.  The person who does single-session only, it's not for him.  The person who likes to flip between settings and genres day-to-day, it's likely not for him.  

It's not that GURPS is difficult to "just start playing."  It's that it's difficult to just start playing five minutes after you pick up the books.

I'm comfy with that.  Others, of course, aren't: YMMV.

Quote from: The Ent;715755Of course though, there's the spells. Personally I've considered using Powers for magic, rather than using the spell skill system, allthough, well, Powers adds rather to the "front-loaded complexity" problem and generally means that say a 125 pts mage will be less than impressive most likely :-/ But I haven't entirely given up on that idea, still. Allthough I like the standard spell system just fine, it's great for a ton of wizard concepts. But, the player better have an idea of what kinda wizard he wants to play.

What I do myself is present a player with a number of wizardly orders, which I've had in my campaign for decades and predate GURPS entirely.  Each order has three or four "consonant" colleges, and at least 51% of the PC's spells need to be from those colleges, so you don't get the Teleport-Major Healing-Fireball-Utter Dome-Telepathy cookie cutters.  I'll put an example in a separate post.  But for my part, I'm not daunted by the spell list -- I've near to tripled it with ones found in other sources and others of my own invention.  The way I handle it is to have a private copy of all the spells any PC wizard knows ... why should I memorize several hundred spells if the party wizard only knows twenty?