TheRPGSite

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.

Quote from: Zalman;989652I 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?*

Games like Unknown Armies have a very truncated list of common skills, but mostly leave it open to make up others as players see fit. They don't attempt to catalogue every skill in a list. I think this is what Pundit is suggesting.

I like skill lists. I like lists of lots of skills. Having "skills" without having a list of them for players to choose will be a boon for some but also a block for others. I've ran games for newer players and they just aren't used to coming up with their own list of skills and then applying it to a system.

Quote from: Dumarest;989509This 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?

I'd call that "Careers" like Barbarians of Lemuria (and others). Careers is what I like to use.

Quote from: Tod13;989682I'd call that "Careers" like Barbarians of Lemuria (and others). Careers is what I like to use.

BoL is great in this regard. I also like how Macchiato Monsters gives each character a "Trait" (e.g., "Dwarf Mercenary," "Shield Maiden of the Rohirrim") that provides Advantage on die rolls when it's a relevant help and Disadvantage when it's a relative hindrance.

I used to play both Over The Edge and (The tragically underrated and IMHO actually really influential) Unknown Armies and I've seen smart players come up with some really clever and fun stuff when creating their own skills. I suppose idiots could game the system or fuck it up somehow, but why would you even play with such chowderheads in the first place?

A problem of a fixed skill list is that it is hard to cover all possible skills. This is especially true in a broad setting like modern day when you can have a character who is a bomb disposal expert, and a character who is a leading psychiatrist. This becomes even more true in games like superhero or multi-dimensional settings, where there may be all of aliens, wizards, and astronauts in the party.

The problems with freeform skills isn't just intentional abuse, though. If all skills are treated as the same value - then it inherently prefers only certain concepts where the skills match allowed bundling. For example, in an action-adventure game, it isn't crazy for a character to be a Navy SEAL. But the tag "Navy SEAL" encompasses a whole lot of useful skills together, and many concepts won't have that same bundling. i.e. If I want my character to be a history professor with a bunch of useful skills, that's much harder to do in the system than just having one stat for "Navy SEAL".

PDQ - Is quite interesting, in the way that certain skills have a large penumbra and anything that falls within it you do better (obviously). So that keeps long lists to a minimum.

I've made a lot of homebrew games without skill lists, but on the balance, I prefer a list of short and fairly broad skills.  It's a trivial thing for any GM to add whatever skill is needed to the list, and the existence of this list provides a good guideline to the breadth and scope of what gets called a "skill."  You don't need to list all possible skills.  Just the ones that are really important to adventuring (if any), and maybe a few others to round out the list.  If you have a comprehensive list that includes skills for every type of weapon, that just means that your scope is too narrow.  I find narrow skill scopes to be very tedious, requiring more time to create a character, encouraging mini-maxing, etc.  If the skills are broad enough, you don't have to ask annoying questions like what happens when you use your longsword skill to fight with a rapier.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

I have come to prefer the way Beyond the Wall and Tunnels & Trolls handle skills. Skills are something that gives your character a bonus when trying to do certain things. The skill lists provided by the game are examples, not finally definitive and exclusive lists. Players are encouraged to make up their own skills.

Skills can be broad or narrow as the player wishes.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;989704I used to play both Over The Edge and (The tragically underrated and IMHO actually really influential) Unknown Armies and I've seen smart players come up with some really clever and fun stuff when creating their own skills.

Any examples?

Like many, the challenge I have with open skill systems is determining appropriate breadth of skills, and as Justin points out, overlapping skills are a problem (and almost assured with an open skill system).

I have also come to understand that it's impossible for a skill list to ever cover all corners, plus we have no real way to judge the realism at all.

With that, and my currently running a bunch of Traveller, I am working with adding as few skills as possible to the original list in Book 1 of Classic Traveller, and taking the skills not as describing what the PC can do, but what the PC is good at under pressure. So yea, no pressure, if it makes sense, your Scout PC can fly his ship, but if he doesn't have Engineering, he's going to have a hard time repairing battle damage or dealing with some emergency with the jump drive. On the other hand, an Army PC isn't going to be flying the ship, but he can drive the Air/Raft, though without Air/Raft or Grav Vehicle skill, he'd better not have an emergency.

So in the end, I prefer a defined skill list not for any modeling of reality, but because it helps tell us what this game is about. A game with an open skill system doesn't give me that direction, and I think that lack of direction is what is behind the issues folks have when playing such systems (I've experienced it particularly with Fudge).

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;989736Like many, the challenge I have with open skill systems is determining appropriate breadth of skills, and as Justin points out, overlapping skills are a problem (and almost assured with an open skill system).

I have also come to understand that it's impossible for a skill list to ever cover all corners, plus we have no real way to judge the realism at all.

With that, and my currently running a bunch of Traveller, I am working with adding as few skills as possible to the original list in Book 1 of Classic Traveller, and taking the skills not as describing what the PC can do, but what the PC is good at under pressure. So yea, no pressure, if it makes sense, your Scout PC can fly his ship, but if he doesn't have Engineering, he's going to have a hard time repairing battle damage or dealing with some emergency with the jump drive. On the other hand, an Army PC isn't going to be flying the ship, but he can drive the Air/Raft, though without Air/Raft or Grav Vehicle skill, he'd better not have an emergency.

So in the end, I prefer a defined skill list not for any modeling of reality, but because it helps tell us what this game is about. A game with an open skill system doesn't give me that direction, and I think that lack of direction is what is behind the issues folks have when playing such systems (I've experienced it particularly with Fudge).

Frank

Yeah.

And this is also where people seem to misunderstand how good a Traveller PC is at things as they sometimes muster out  with a handful of skills with low numbers. To me, that's much more realistic than PCs with a huge list of specialties.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;989728What I like about "skill lists" is the ability to clearly call for a specific skill test: Give me a Persuade test. Give me an Oral History test. Give me a Jump test. When skills can be anything, it can get a little kludgy and require a bit more back-and-forth to figure out whether particular skills apply to this particular test.

This is currently where I'm at. I want the skills to be specific, transparent, and unambiguous. I don't want Disguise as part of the Deception skill, or Intimidate and Leadership as components of the Presence skill. But it's certainly possible to go to far in the other direction: no one cares about Cup stacking (paper cups) vs. Cup stacking (plastic cups). Gurps, I'm looking at you.

My current preference is a list in the 30-40 range. Perhaps it's one of those things that falls into a Goldilock's Zone, where one person's "just right" is another's "too much." But the guiding principle shouldn't be to make the ideal Platonic skill list, but to create one that defines and supports the setting you're designing for. If zooming around in jet packs is something that happens in the setting, then by all means have a Jet Pack Operations skill. But there's no need to put it in every game.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989731Skills can be broad or narrow as the player wishes.

Which works when Al creates Cup Stacking, Beth creates French Poetry, and Chris creates African History. Breaks down when the new player creates "00 Agent" or "Ninja".

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;989704(The tragically underrated and IMHO actually really influential) Unknown Armies

Where do you see influences of UA on other games or the wider hobby?

Quote from: Simlasa;989735Any examples?

How about:

"Operate Starship and Chew Gum at the Same Time"
"Scathing ('Oooh, Big Words!) Sarcasm"
"Turn radios into Howitzers"
"Comprehension through Pugilation"
"Surrender and still look like a man"
"Balloon Animal Construction"
"Run with Scizzors" (sic)
"Tolerate Hideous amounts of Bloody mutilation and still eat fast foods"

....oh, sorry, that was HoL: Human Occupied Landfill....

I really enjoyed 13th age's backgrounds. So much so that I replaced fate of the Norns skill system with it. Now, I am unlikely to do that for something like Mythras, but for lighter skill systems, backgrounds work very well.

Quote from: Aglondir;989812Which works when Al creates Cup Stacking, Beth creates French Poetry, and Chris creates African History. Breaks down when the new player creates "00 Agent" or "Ninja".

No, it still works just fine. The player still needs to justify why having the "ninja" skill would give them a bonus to do the thing. Presumably this group is playing in a very roleplay heavy game, if skills like "cup stacking", "French Poetry" and "African History" are useful enough that players choose to take them.

Also, in the games that I cited Al, Beth and Chris would all be free to attempt doing "Ninja" or "00 Agent" stuff, they just wouldn't get the skill bonus.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;989728It's very much a trade-off, IMO.

What I like about "make your own skill" systems is that they're incredibly flexible and encourage creativity. (As such, this approach tends to work better in systems that are "looser" and encourage putting a lot of authority into the hands of both players and GMs.) They do require the GM to make a ruling on what's appropriate and what is too broad, but if a GM can't make a ruling on whether or not to include something in the game then the GM is going to have a really rough time of it. (They also work better if players aren't trying to be schmucks, but... ditto. A game with schmucks for players is in jeopardy from a lot of other problems.)

HeroQuest has an interesting way of handling the broadness of skills. When you are in a contest, the player with the narrowest skill gets a bonus. You can take "Weapon Master" and be able to use any weapon, but if you get in a sword fight with someone with the "Swordsman" ability, he is going to get a bonus.

QuoteWhat I like about "skill lists" is the ability to clearly call for a specific skill test: Give me a Persuade test. Give me an Oral History test. Give me a Jump test. When skills can be anything, it can get a little kludgy and require a bit more back-and-forth to figure out whether particular skills apply to this particular test.

This can be a real issue. It's annoying when every check needs to be negotiation. That's why I prefer that games with make-'em-up skills be on the Over the Edge side of the spectrum with a few broad traits. I can easily remember all the traits that players have and call on them as needed. On the other hand, if each player has ten unique skills, I am never going to remember them all.

Someone brought up BoL, I approve of this message!

Negotiation of what a skill does and does not cover is something that I find particularly not fun and also distracting.  It's the kind of thing I want mostly handled before I sit down to play, not during.  Ruling on how the situation affects things is fine.  It's not nearly as distracting.

See, I'm posting from my actual at the table GMing experience. Not white room speculation with facetious examples. As for negotiating what a skill does and does not cover, in the moment I tend to make a quick ruling and move the game along. I am accepting of reasonable pitches for a skill applying.

Quote from: DavetheLost;990222See, I'm posting from my actual at the table GMing experience. Not white room speculation with facetious examples. As for negotiating what a skill does and does not cover, in the moment I tend to make a quick ruling and move the game along. I am accepting of reasonable pitches for a skill applying.

That sounds good, but also makes me wonder if part of the player skill in such a game is being able to play the GM? That isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I suspect most RPGs (along with wargames where the GM can make open ended rulings such as Free Kriegspiel) have that problem to some degree or another. I guess the fact of a major aspect (of not most) of a PCs definition being open to such subjectivity seems ripe for abuse. Of course the real answer is don't play with players who abuse things like that and GMs who allow the abuse.

Frank

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: DavetheLost;990222See, I'm posting from my actual at the table GMing experience. Not white room speculation with facetious examples. As for negotiating what a skill does and does not cover, in the moment I tend to make a quick ruling and move the game along. I am accepting of reasonable pitches for a skill applying.

I see no reason why this can't work.  On the other hand, I think one thing that's easy to forget about skill lists is that, in the real world, any reasonable GM will not hesitate to add skills as needed or requested by the players.

If a game can accommodate variable degrees of breadth, then a lack of skill lists can signal that players should be creative.  Also, the GM is implicitly (and often explicitly) encouraged to make intelligent rulings.  A lot of people talk about how balance is of secondary importance to OSR, so varying breadth shouldn't concern us with a little rationality injected by the GM.  Also, I really like the mechanic that Balderstone describes for Heroquest; I have the rules but I haven't gotten that far with them, yet.

But depending on the mechanics, it can be a nice thing to at least have the guidance that comes with skill lists.  For instance, if I'm playing in a game with strong sense of setting like Twilight 2000, Dark Albion, or Jorune, a skill list can be very useful for getting my head in the right space - i.e. these are the things a PC adventurer needs to care about in this world.  This becomes especially important for games that don't hand-wave resource management.

Nope, it never works for me.

The closest concept that I can work with is Sine Nomine's Exemplars & Eidolons (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/144651/Exemplars--Eidolons) where you write a few sentences with facts about your PC and if those facts come up in play, you get a bonus to the ability check.

I go back and forth on this, but, of late, I've settled on having no set list, with certain classes being much better at certain things, i.e., "anyone can attempt to pick a lock, but rogues are much better at it," etc. The only listed skills are the ones classes have advantage on (a la Black Hack). So, maybe it's more accurate to say I like skills folded in with classes?

Games without a well defined baseline skill list are pretty much a non starter for me. To be fair, I also dislike games that give you a seemingly solid skill list then add skills in supplements that de facto change the capability of original characters. To me, skills are too central to the gameplay experience to allow trust to player capricr or freelance/3rd party designer whim.

Quote from: Dumarest;989509This 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?

In Lion & Dragon you get skills from your background, or from your class. So you could have something like "Carpentry +1" or "Hide in Shadows +1" or "Occult Lore +2". There are a few classes that can choose some kind of skill aside from those explicitly listed (like a "lore", though ample examples of what makes up a 'lore' are provided).

There's just no place in the book where I bothered to list all the skills there are in one single place.

This practise is really bad game design and a total red flag for me. It broke my interest in Numenera which, ymmv, was otherwise quite decent.

What's to stop one player saying 'ranged weapons' instead of 'bow' or 'pistol' and being able to fire every type of ranged weapon with one skill? Maybe that's an issue for some, not for others, but that's the ambiguity that's the problem.

How difficult is it to craft a simple skill list?

Quote from: Biscuitician;991735
How difficult is it to craft a simple skill list?

Depending on what you want out of it, very difficult. If you are creating a comprehensive skill list, you have to balance too much against not enough, and try to avoid accidentally creating "meta-skills". Read some of the other responses in this thread and one of the threads about building optimal characters.

Skip to last paragraph to bypass me talking about my RPG.

   For my game, I use nothing but "meta-skills" and careers. My game's equivalent of skill categories are: Offense, Defense, Magic, Non-Career Skills, and Career Skills. Pick two careers. (Non-career skills are permanently at the lowest level.)

If you want to be bad at something, there is a mechanic to add that in. (I have one player whose character thinks she is good at stealth stuff, but isn't.)

If you want to be extra good at something, there is a mechanic for that. (The same character is incredibly good at climbing.)

Even those meta-skills can be abusive--like your example of creating a meta-category that applies more often. Rather than rules-lawyer that, I just said to make sure everyone is happy with how things are. I have a player with a character who has a penalty to everything underground--the player is very happy running that character. I have characters whose penalties are more specific, like the stealth stuff, and everyone is happy with that too.

Sometimes, it is how a player looks at a skill. One player took "fetch" as their really-good skill for their werewolf character. She got to use it once or twice when they needed lizards to make chicken vindaloo, but was sad she didn't get to use it more. I told her she could try using it whenever she wanted--try swiping weapons from opponents or use it to successfully serve the vindaloo. She's a lot more happy now.

But, I also offer to let people choose differently if things don't quite work how they expected. But I don't think anyone has ever done that.

But, that isn't to everyone's taste. Some GMs and Players get into arguments about if a career matches a particular skill. So Players that do that, or are often playing in "pick up" groups want a system with more rigorously defined skill areas, so they know what their character can do starting out, rather than having to guess about what the GM thinks is "allowed".

Quote from: Tod13;991777Pick two careers.

You lost me right there. Two careers? I know a few people that moonlight, or have a side job. Those people wind up doing neither job very well in my experience. I don't know anyone who has two careers, and somehow I suspect that such a person would be even rarer in a medieval economy. Unless you don't need sleep for some strange reason and have separate lives night and day, I just can't even begin to wrap my head around having more than one career.

A quick google brings this up for "career":

Quote from: Googlean occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress.

How may significant portions of a life does one have at one time? In my 50+ years on this planet, my experience has been that the answer is invariably one.

Quote from: Zalman;991780You lost me right there. Two careers? I know a few people that moonlight, or have a side job. Those people wind up doing neither job very well in my experience. I don't know anyone who has two careers, and somehow I suspect that such a person would be even rarer in a medieval economy. Unless you don't need sleep for some strange reason and have separate lives night and day, I just can't even begin to wrap my head around having more than one career.

Actually, in medieval times, I think there was less specialization to a narrow career. In a big modern city, someone can make their money as a specialist in a narrow field (neurosurgeon,  interior decorator, etc.), and use their money to buy everything else. In history, there were often less specialists, and people had several different part-time jobs that changed with the time of year and/or demand.

For example, in medieval times, someone might tend a farm in the summer, and in the winter fish and make their own candles and beer. If they weren't good at home-building, they traded beer with a neighbor to fix their house. Another person might be a good blacksmith, and have their own forge, but they also maintain their cow herd and stables for a living. In particular, professional soldiers were a rarity. Most often, someone would be called on to fight in times of conflict - but most of the time tended their lands or had some other living.

Quote from: Zalman;991780You lost me right there. Two careers? I know a few people that moonlight, or have a side job. Those people wind up doing neither job very well in my experience. I don't know anyone who has two careers, and somehow I suspect that such a person would be even rarer in a medieval economy. Unless you don't need sleep for some strange reason and have separate lives night and day, I just can't even begin to wrap my head around having more than one career.

A quick google brings this up for "career":

How may significant portions of a life does one have at one time? In my 50+ years on this planet, my experience has been that the answer is invariably one.

I tend to somewhat agree with this assessment, though I think you can approximate life experience via certain paths, especially if the career progression is wedded to character backstory. From a game perspective, though, Barbarians of Lemuria has an interesting way of doing this, with careers forming said backbone. I should note here, though, that some of those careers might also be, for lack of a batter word, :statuses" (i.e., being a "Slave," or a "Wanderer," etc.--not so much careers as experiences). In any case, in that system, since you rated the careers from 0 to +3 (if I remember right), you could then delineate where a person's time was spent.

For example, for myself, having spent the same 50+ years hangin' around this little blue ball, I can say I have significant experience in the following areas:

Journalist
Military Linguist/cryptanalyst
Teacher
Actor

There's a lot of other little stuff in there (thanks to my redneck, Texas family, I learned to hunt and fish, basic carpentry, and, thanks to summer jobs, something of service station pump piping and installation [though I don't think I can list "Redneck Texan" as a "career," per se).:-)  Those are basically the main "careers" I've had, with two of them being my primary occupation, for most of my life.  If I had to put +'s to reflect this, it'd be something like this, on the BoL scale:

Journalist +1
Military Linguist/cryptanalyst +2
Teacher +4
Actor +2

This based on time spent actually doing those things. I spend, and have spent, a shit ton of time writing and publishing various things (mostly plays), but I can't put "Writer" on the list, I guess, because my livelihood does not depend on it.

Anyhoo, I think a career system that reflects what you've already done via scaling bonuses isn't so far fetched when it comes to approximating life experiences. But all careers are not equal, in game terms, which can lead to yet another widget to min-max. I therefore like the idea of random backgrounds, just to avoid power gaming in this area.

Quote from: jhkim;991821Actually, in medieval times, I think there was less specialization to a narrow career. In a big modern city, someone can make their money as a specialist in a narrow field (neurosurgeon,  interior decorator, etc.), and use their money to buy everything else. In history, there were often less specialists, and people had several different part-time jobs that changed with the time of year and/or demand.

For example, in medieval times, someone might tend a farm in the summer, and in the winter fish and make their own candles and beer. If they weren't good at home-building, they traded beer with a neighbor to fix their house. Another person might be a good blacksmith, and have their own forge, but they also maintain their cow herd and stables for a living. In particular, professional soldiers were a rarity. Most often, someone would be called on to fight in times of conflict - but most of the time tended their lands or had some other living.

+1. The campaign tech level is an important consideration.

Quote from: jhkim;991821In history, there were often less specialists, and people had several different part-time jobs that changed with the time of year and/or demand.

Quote from: cranebump;991824I tend to somewhat agree with this assessment, though I think you can approximate life experience via certain paths, especially if the career progression is wedded to character backstory.

Both of these examples describe different careers pursued at different times, rather than two at the same time. Scaling bonuses based on time spent previously makes sense to me, so long as those bonuses are static. Any bonus that improves over time I feel should reflect time spent currently, not just in the past. I was mean treeplanter in my day, and could surely still a swing hoedad with aplomb, but I'm not getting any better at it lately.

Couple that with the fact that most characters I've seen start pretty darn young (at least in human development scale), and not a merry-old 50+ years. I'd have a lot harder time swallowing that career list if you told me you were 17 years old.

Even the guy who works one job in the summer and one in the winter will only get better at the one they are currently doing, just in shorter intervals.

Quote from: Zalman;991780You lost me right there. Two careers? I know a few people that moonlight, or have a side job. Those people wind up doing neither job very well in my experience. I don't know anyone who has two careers, and somehow I suspect that such a person would be even rarer in a medieval economy. Unless you don't need sleep for some strange reason and have separate lives night and day, I just can't even begin to wrap my head around having more than one career.

It is to reflect that a single career doesn't quite cover everything. If you don't want two, don't pick two. :D

For myself, I'm a hunter, handgunner, sporting clay shooter, swordsman, Aikido practitioner, bioinformatician, software developer, Eagle Scout, with some statistical and molecular biology training. I've worked in financial, aerospace, medical, research, information, logistics, and insurance fields. I can pilot the space shuttle in on orbit rendezvous and docking maneuvers. I can sail a sailboat and replace the shear pin on an outboard. I ride motorcycles and know the basics of dog mushing. I can (slowly) butcher and then cook an animal. I can build a 1911 from parts, including fitting the important stuff.

So you can see, "software developer" or even "bioinformatician" might not be enough. :p

Quote from: cranebump;991824I tend to somewhat agree with this assessment, though I think you can approximate life experience via certain paths, especially if the career progression is wedded to character backstory. From a game perspective, though, Barbarians of Lemuria has an interesting way of doing this, with careers forming said backbone. I should note here, though, that some of those careers might also be, for lack of a batter word, :statuses" (i.e., being a "Slave," or a "Wanderer," etc.--not so much careers as experiences). In any case, in that system, since you rated the careers from 0 to +3 (if I remember right), you could then delineate where a person's time was spent.

That's where I got the idea--I just simplified it. Maybe a lot. It works for us and is fun. ;)

Quote from: BiscuiticianWhat's to stop one player saying 'ranged weapons' instead of 'bow' or 'pistol' and being able to fire every type of ranged weapon with one skill?

A referee with two warm neurons to rub together.

It's pretty customary in the BoL community to list a character's Careers in biographical and not alphabetical or numeric sequence. At the start of his career (i.e., "Tower of the Elephant"), Conan of Cimmeria thus has Barbarian 3, Blacksmith 0, Mercenary 1, and Thief 0. Aragorn goes from Noble 1 and Physician 1 (the Careers he learned under Elrond's tutelage in Rivendell) to Hunter 1 (when he comes of age among the Dunedain of the North) and Soldier 1 (when he goes south to serve in the armies of Rohan and Gondor). The Mouser's apprenticeship to a wizard starts him off with Magician 0 and Scholar 0 and then moves him to Thief 3 and Tumbler 1 when he gets to Lankhmar.

Quote from: RPGPundit;991723In Lion & Dragon you get skills from your background, or from your class. So you could have something like "Carpentry +1" or "Hide in Shadows +1" or "Occult Lore +2". There are a few classes that can choose some kind of skill aside from those explicitly listed (like a "lore", though ample examples of what makes up a 'lore' are provided).

There's just no place in the book where I bothered to list all the skills there are in one single place.

Works for me.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1574[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Vargold;991895It's pretty customary in the BoL community to list a character's Careers in biographical and not alphabetical or numeric sequence. At the start of his career (i.e., "Tower of the Elephant"), Conan of Cimmeria thus has Barbarian 3, Blacksmith 0, Mercenary 1, and Thief 0. Aragorn goes from Noble 1 and Physician 1 (the Careers he learned under Elrond's tutelage in Rivendell) to Hunter 1 (when he comes of age among the Dunedain of the North) and Soldier 1 (when he goes south to serve in the armies of Rohan and Gondor). The Mouser's apprenticeship to a wizard starts him off with Magician 0 and Scholar 0 and then moves him to Thief 3 and Tumbler 1 when he gets to Lankhmar.

Quite right. It's a really nice system for the setting, and does adapt well to others, as evidence by BotA, BotV, Dicey Tales, and so on.

Quote from: Zalman;991780You lost me right there. Two careers? I know a few people that moonlight, or have a side job. Those people wind up doing neither job very well in my experience. I don't know anyone who has two careers, and somehow I suspect that such a person would be even rarer in a medieval economy. Unless you don't need sleep for some strange reason and have separate lives night and day, I just can't even begin to wrap my head around having more than one career.

A quick google brings this up for "career":

How may significant portions of a life does one have at one time? In my 50+ years on this planet, my experience has been that the answer is invariably one.

You'd be right if it was back in the 80's, but now it's been stated that they average person will have two or three, spending 10 or so years doing something as intensely as career.  Note the definition says 'significant PORTIONS', plural.  I believe it's also been stated that it would a good thing to switch careers to avoid burnout.

Quote from: RPGPundit;989438In Appendix P and my upcoming Lion & Dragon

Can you tell us a bit more about this project and when it will be released?

I like open skill systems but I want some examples for guidance in making them up. I prefer a few broad skills to a long list of very specific skills. I think it's a mistake to make all skills equally broad or narrow, though. If I have to choose a limited number of skills, I want them to be equal in usefulness and not in scope.

In a combat-focused medieval fantasy dungeon romp, you could have narrow skills like "two-handed sword" and "one-handed sword" and "short sword" as separate skills, but I wouldn't want to have knowledge skills that are equally narrow such as separate "history" skills for each kingdom and century. Players would end up rolling one specific combat skill dozens of times per session but they would be lucky to get one chance in a campaign to roll a specific knowledge specialty. For a campaign like this, I want to see narrow combat skills and broad knowledge skills like "Short Sword", "Longbow", "Crossbow", "Lance (Mounted)", and "Scholar".

In an investigation-heavy Victorian horror game, you could have constant use for specific dead languages and esoteric fields of study but all the combat stuff could be rolled up into one violent skill that rarely comes up. You can't defeat the elder horrors by stabbing or shooting them, but you might benefit from occasionally punching a cultist to knock him down and run away. So the skill list should include things like "Latin", "Ancient Sumerian Cuneiform", "Egyptian Hieroglyphics of the Middle Kingdom", and "Violence".

Quote from: Tod13;991881For myself, I'm a hunter, handgunner, sporting clay shooter, swordsman, Aikido practitioner, bioinformatician, software developer, Eagle Scout, with some statistical and molecular biology training. I've worked in financial, aerospace, medical, research, information, logistics, and insurance fields. I can pilot the space shuttle in on orbit rendezvous and docking maneuvers. I can sail a sailboat and replace the shear pin on an outboard. I ride motorcycles and know the basics of dog mushing. I can (slowly) butcher and then cook an animal. I can build a 1911 from parts, including fitting the important stuff.

I can tie my shoelaces together.;)

Quote from: Simon W;991990I can tie my shoelaces together.;)

LOL :D So, you're good with knots? Can we get you to sneak into the guards' room and tie their shoes together?

My players usually pick one career as their "real" career--one directly related to adventuring. They pick their second one as either a hobby or their family profession--usually one related more to flavor. I just remembered, since my players' group is now "Cave Catering", I think one of the players is changing her character's secondary career to be "waitress".

Quote from: Simon W;991990I can tie my shoelaces together.;)

Game Designer 3, Shoelace Bungler 1

Quote from: Vargold;992020Game Designer 3, Shoelace Bungler 1

Thank you Simon and Vargold for giving me a much needed laugh.

Quote from: Biscuitician;991735This practise is really bad game design and a total red flag for me. It broke my interest in Numenera which, ymmv, was otherwise quite decent.

What's to stop one player saying 'ranged weapons' instead of 'bow' or 'pistol' and being able to fire every type of ranged weapon with one skill? Maybe that's an issue for some, not for others, but that's the ambiguity that's the problem.

How difficult is it to craft a simple skill list?

Well, that supposes a couple of things. First, that combat bonuses derive from skills (they don't in most OSR games). Second, that the GM is an easily-manipulated idiot.

The whole point of not having a restrictive skill list is to give the GM freedom, and to allow for creative player choices for their characters within that freedom.

Quote from: jhkim;991821Actually, in medieval times, I think there was less specialization to a narrow career. In a big modern city, someone can make their money as a specialist in a narrow field (neurosurgeon,  interior decorator, etc.), and use their money to buy everything else. In history, there were often less specialists, and people had several different part-time jobs that changed with the time of year and/or demand.

For example, in medieval times, someone might tend a farm in the summer, and in the winter fish and make their own candles and beer. If they weren't good at home-building, they traded beer with a neighbor to fix their house. Another person might be a good blacksmith, and have their own forge, but they also maintain their cow herd and stables for a living. In particular, professional soldiers were a rarity. Most often, someone would be called on to fight in times of conflict - but most of the time tended their lands or had some other living.

Yes and no. There certainly was some of this, and careers back then tended as a rule to be less specialized, particularly when you were talking about peasant farmers or aristocratic land-holders (the "skill set" for an Earl included land management, diplomacy/politics, physical combat, military command, and economics).

But among the middle-classes, there was a significant amount of specializations. Some skills were specifically limited to families through Guild training.  If you were a candle-maker, pretty much all you did work-wise was make candles; you were part of a special organization that had the exclusive monopoly to make candles inside your city, and you became a candle-maker because your dad was a candle-maker.

Quote from: Frey;991940Can you tell us a bit more about this project and when it will be released?

Lion & Dragon is a complete OSR RPG meant for running "Medieval Authentic" campaigns. It is in essence the full version of the rule-set I used for running Dark Albion (a very shortened version of the same was in Appendix P of Dark Albion). It will include mechanics and inherent-setting guidelines for running games in an authentic-medieval society, and the magic system will be completely different from standard D&D, based on (in the sense of directly-borrowing from) real medieval concepts and practices of magic.   Things like magic items and monsters will also be based on real medieval folklore.

The current forecast, as of an email I got from Dominique Crouzet today, is that it should be published sometime around the end of October.

Quote from: Biscuitician;991735This practise is really bad game design and a total red flag for me. It broke my interest in Numenera which, ymmv, was otherwise quite decent.

What's to stop one player saying 'ranged weapons' instead of 'bow' or 'pistol' and being able to fire every type of ranged weapon with one skill? Maybe that's an issue for some, not for others, but that's the ambiguity that's the problem.

How difficult is it to craft a simple skill list?

Well, if you're going with an OSR common sense mentality.

Bowman, Baldy Jim Bojangles finds a nice shiny flintlock. You'd simply say, 'sorry Baldy Jim you can't use a flintlock because you've never used one before. So Baldy then goes off, in a bit of game downtime, and learns to shoot, load and maintain the pistol. Now he can use a bow and a pistol. He still has good hand eye coordination so it's a traferable skill (for the sake of playing an RPG at any rate). No need to get bogged down in technicalities imo.

Personally, I'm a fan of open skill systems (as long as it's adjudicated with a bit of common sense). But whatever floats 'yer boat.