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".