In Appendix P and my upcoming Lion & Dragon, there are skills. Characters do skill checks. They have skill bonuses. But I chose very consciously not to write a list of the skills anywhere.  This wasn't just sloppiness, it was a kind of statement, to make it very clear that instead of the GM feeling limited as to what skills he can use, there's pretty much no limit.

Do you find that appealing? Or are you more likely to feel comfortable with a game where there's a define list of skills (be it 14 skills, or 40, or 200) and those are the ones you use and nothing else?

Well, skills relay the setting for a game. But if skills are not listed... I'm assuming there will be a design sheet for the GM to help generate the kinds of skills that players would be allowed to have in the setting/era/techlevel for their game. There will probably be some universal skills that every setting will have, like basic default skills of some kind. Some GMs might find it fun to work them out for their campaign. So when a player says his character is cutting through metal, he doesn't say what skill he's using. The GM will tell him what the skill is and determine on the spot the name and level for that skill check the player rolls for. Something like that. But with less words and quicker, because you don't want the game to stop while the GM makes up a skill for someone, or the player argues that he has no skill that he needs to be rolling for.

If your game is diceless, then forget all I said.

The issue for me becomes how broad or narrow are they supposed to be?  Science is a rather broad category, and molecular biology is rather specific.  Also, how many skills is the average character supposed to have?  Backgrounds will have a lot of different areas of knowledge and/or training.

Long skill lists are definitely off-putting and cliché. There is also the whole Over The Edge notion of creating your own traits, which could be defined as skills, as a creative part of defining the character. Broad or narrow is definitely an issue, but if the GM has a good handle on what is wanted in the game, they can be established through dialogue with each player.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;989454Long skill lists are definitely off-putting and cliché. There is also the whole Over The Edge notion of creating your own traits, which could be defined as skills, as a creative part of defining the character. Broad or narrow is definitely an issue, but if the GM has a good handle on what is wanted in the game, they can be established through dialogue with each player.

Now, I'm going to clarify my position:  I don't mind making up my own skills, I just need a benchmark to base my choices off of.

Not a fan - but as both GM & player I'm not a fan of systems which are inherently subjective.  It's not badwrongfun - just not my taste.  (Yes - I realize that 'objective' systems have subjective bits too - but those are on the margins rather than the core system.)

I always saw skill lists as a malleable element in the games I play, and I felt free, as a GM, to alter them to suit the setting... add or remove or tweak. If a Player thinks something is missing or vague that gets consideration too.
So I guess I don't see the benefit of no list at all unless you're chasing after the Fate hipsters... who want unique 'MY skills' to define their PC.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989467Now, I'm going to clarify my position:  I don't mind making up my own skills, I just need a benchmark to base my choices off of.

In most recent games I went in between these choices. There are 6 attributes, and five skills for each, totaling 30 very broad skills - i.e. Science is a skill. However, these skills can only be raised to a rank of 2. To take them higher, you need to specialize, so your Science+2 skill with an additional skill rank becomes Science+2/Molecular Biology+3, or Science/Astrophysics+3. Skills are listed and tied to attributes, and a few example specializations are given, but are not defined in any other way. In other words, skills are defined by their use in a game (ruling) and by group custom. Players are free to create their own specializations. Makes for a very light, strong, and flexible framework, which can be tied by use tightly into a setting - i.e. Science+2/Ether Vortex+3.

So to Pundit's question, yes, no problem!

-clash

Depends on the game... For OpenQuest (or versions of RQ) I'm quite happy to have skill list. However, with newer iterations of the game, it's been fairly streamlined now. So, it works even better for me. WFRP works as well but the list is nice an pared down.

But regarding OSR, then I would want a different and looser experience. Something that's none-intrusive to the game play and in line with the character class.

Beyond each characters innate abilities (or special skills). I'd prefer a generic rolling system tied to the attributes (like in Beyond the Wall). Something that can be modified by the GM on the fly with different situational modifiers. Assuming the skill requires 'specialist knowledge' and the character has no access to that knowlege then he or she can't use it.

These situational modifiers would also be tied to the character's class. So if a thief was trying to jump over onto a slippery roof in the pissing rain then he might only get a - 2 on his roll, while a more clumsy Barbarian type might get a - 4.

Each class (and one's attribute score) can be examined and a common sense approach to skills form the GM could be applied.

In order of preference, I'd rather have:  

1. A good, thoughtful skill list
2. No skill list
3. A poor skill list tacked on

#2 is a vast improvement on #3.  However, #2 is not a good fit for me or the type of players I typically run a game for.  They are nearly always of the type where "limits are freeing," in that they need some framework in which to work.  If the game doesn't provide it, I'll need to.  It's easier for me to add my own skill list then extract a bad one first, but by the time the game hits the table, there will be a list.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;989454Long skill lists are definitely off-putting and cliché. There is also the whole Over The Edge notion of creating your own traits, which could be defined as skills, as a creative part of defining the character. Broad or narrow is definitely an issue, but if the GM has a good handle on what is wanted in the game, they can be established through dialogue with each player.

Over the Edge does it right limiting it to just a few traits. The assumption is that the "skills" you are making up are broad. It gets messier when have a game where players make up skills but can have ten or so. That leads to the assumption that skills aren't that broad, which means the GM needs to police it more carefully.

I disagree with people suggesting that players making up their own skills is some new hipster thing. To me, it brings to mind giving your D&D character a couple of proficiencies by way of a backstory.

Quote from: RPGPundit;989438In Appendix P and my upcoming Lion & Dragon, there are skills. Characters do skill checks. They have skill bonuses. But I chose very consciously not to write a list of the skills anywhere.  This wasn't just sloppiness, it was a kind of statement, to make it very clear that instead of the GM feeling limited as to what skills he can use, there's pretty much no limit.

Do you find that appealing? Or are you more likely to feel comfortable with a game where there's a define list of skills (be it 14 skills, or 40, or 200) and those are the ones you use and nothing else?

If there are skills, I want a skill list. Otherwise,  I feel I'm doing the work of writing the game (or the setting). I'm OK with "Here's the default for the setting. Feel free to add others if wanted."

I feel the same way about magic systems that put the onus of making them work on the GM. (In particular, I refer to free-form systems that are "make up your spell, and ask the GM if it's OK to do that".) As the GM, I want to spend my time role-playing the NPCs and monsters, not making the system work.

Quote from: RPGPundit;989438In Appendix P and my upcoming Lion & Dragon, there are skills. Characters do skill checks. They have skill bonuses. But I chose very consciously not to write a list of the skills anywhere.  This wasn't just sloppiness, it was a kind of statement, to make it very clear that instead of the GM feeling limited as to what skills he can use, there's pretty much no limit.

Do you find that appealing? Or are you more likely to feel comfortable with a game where there's a define list of skills (be it 14 skills, or 40, or 200) and those are the ones you use and nothing else?

This is rather vaguely described. Does the player  state "my PC used to be a fowler" and then he automatically has any associated skills and just rolls vs. a stat and whatever bonus the ref gave him when he wants to use it and there's a chance of failure?

Quote from: Baulderstone;989494I disagree with people suggesting that players making up their own skills is some new hipster thing. To me, it brings to mind giving your D&D character a couple of proficiencies by way of a backstory.

I was indulging myself with hyperbole. I don't think it's new, but having Players make up skills still seems different than saying, "He was a sailor so he's good at the sort of stuff sailors are good at."... which is how I'd go with D&D/backstory systems, rather than writing down specific skills (I don't want skill lists in D&D games anyway).
Players creating specific skills seems like it could lead to excessive lag while we discuss why Bob's 'climb rocks' skill is different than Joe's 'climb ropes' skill and which is faster getting over the chain link fence.

I don't understand the difference between having "skills" and a "skill list". Is it just a matter of when and by whom the specific skills are delineated?*

What I like best is a method of resolving skillful actions, without any specific skills ever being delineated.

* I might understand better if I'd read Lion and Dragon, but I don't have that game.