Quote from: jhkim;828709One common issue I have a problem with is disconnected (or "cherry-picked") skills.  Players are encouraged to take skills that are most useful, so everyone picks up some stealth, a single weapon skill, and so forth. Then again, this is also true of many class-based systems.

I'm obviously a partisan of GURPS.

But that being said, what you describe is -- I think -- very much a matter of the culture of individual gaming groups.  My own players overwhelmingly want their key skills to be at solid levels, as opposed to Everyone Can Do A Bunch of Disconnected Things, However Mediocre.

But that being said ... look.  If I was a full-time adventurer, I'd want to have a little talent for stealth.  I'd want to be good enough with a weapon or some manner of martial art, so as to be able to defend myself even if I was the party REMF.  I'd want to be able to handle myself without being too clueless in a city, and I'd want to know some basics of camping and living off the land.

This was my approach in fantasy boffer LARPing, where even as the game's most powerful wizard I knew a bunch of these already, and got good at the ones I didn't.  If I was with a party, they expected me to keep up and hold up my end of things.

One of the problems with the D&D paradigm, I feel, is that it's traditionally promoted INcompetence outside your class abilities.  You're a magic-user, so you're not supposed to be able to fight.  You're a warrior, so you're not supposed to be stealthy.  Etc.

Quote from: danskmacabre;828759I'd love to review it before I buy I think in this case.

There's a free quickstart on Chaosium's site: http://www.chaosium.com/magic-world-quick-start-pdf/

Quote from: jhkim;828709One common issue I have a problem with is disconnected (or "cherry-picked") skills.  Players are encouraged to take skills that are most useful, so everyone picks up some stealth, a single weapon skill, and so forth.

I guess it depends on the group. I like randomly rolled PCs in class/level games but in skill-based I generally encourage starting with a character concept that fits the genre/setting... and work from that... vs. a shopping cart of skills that don't paint a plausible character.

Regarding cherry-picking skills in GURPS - one very rarely wants to tell players they can pick whatever they want. (You'll have a bad time if you give no guidelines or limits to what people can play in D&D too.) What experienced GM's tend to do, is offer a set of choices of appropriate character backgrounds, about what skills and abilities (or even what disadvantages) are appropriate, and then work with the player to make the character appropriate for the game, if the first version has issues. (3rd and 4th Edition GURPS formalize this by listing Templates, which list what certain character types will tend to have.)

I find this is a great opportunity to make a campaign world unique and interesting, by limiting what skills (and especially spells) are available and in common use where in the world, and by whom. GURPS has so much stuff (especially 4th edition, which includes almost every character option from all the worldbooks in its basic books), that it would be silly to have even just all the mundane tech level 3 stuff available to and used by everyone everywhere. And when the world-designer specifies who and where uses what, it gives the places and organizations in the world character. Players can then make their background and their adventures include finding and studying with these groups to gain particular skills, and so on.

Quote from: Ravenswing;828760I'm obviously a partisan of GURPS.

But that being said, what you describe is -- I think -- very much a matter of the culture of individual gaming groups.  My own players overwhelmingly want their key skills to be at solid levels, as opposed to Everyone Can Do A Bunch of Disconnected Things, However Mediocre.

But that being said ... look.  If I was a full-time adventurer, I'd want to have a little talent for stealth.  I'd want to be good enough with a weapon or some manner of martial art, so as to be able to defend myself even if I was the party REMF.  I'd want to be able to handle myself without being too clueless in a city, and I'd want to know some basics of camping and living off the land.

This was my approach in fantasy boffer LARPing, where even as the game's most powerful wizard I knew a bunch of these already, and got good at the ones I didn't.  If I was with a party, they expected me to keep up and hold up my end of things.

One of the problems with the D&D paradigm, I feel, is that it's traditionally promoted INcompetence outside your class abilities.  You're a magic-user, so you're not supposed to be able to fight.  You're a warrior, so you're not supposed to be stealthy.  Etc.

A concept I always like are skill trees, that allow a character to take 'basic' stealth levels, which gives small competence incrementally in all the stealth skills, while allowing true practitioners to specialize in Hiding in shadows, moving silently,  disguise, mixing with crowds, quiet combat, etc.
And mages might take 'basic dagger', to give a little incremental growth in the usage, while the deeper skills of multi, dam bon, att vs, init bonus, singleweap special, parry, then deeper still with disarm, frenzy, stunning attack, critical hit bonus, etc can be learned as one gets deeper in the skill.

It is not an on/off switch, but a continuum of capability I aim for.

Quote from: Telarus;828707The middle ground of Earthdawn gets my vote, where the "classes" are in-world secret societies, but advancement is skill/talent based. The 4th edition simplifies the resolution system (gets rid of the success level charts), so might be worth checking out again.

I would dearly love to just play Earthdawn again, but I'm fairly sure I rolled a critical fail on my persuasion check when I tried to sell it to my DM. She just doesn't seem at all interested in it. Which is unfortunate, but not something I can change, so I'm doing my best to swallow my pride and work to find a middle ground we can all compromise on.

Looks longingly at ED4 book and stack of character ideas Someday...

Quote from: LordVreeg;828730Well.  I can say I've done what he's talking about.  After houseruling D&D, back in the day,to the nth degree, i created a homebrew skill base to match the game I wanted to play, and the setting I wanted to work with.

That was 1983.  It is still  99% of my games I run.  And for a longer term game, I recommend it.  I have groups that play 150-200 sessions that get better and more competent constantly who still are scared of being one-shotted if they are silly.

So, your buddy may be trying to match the same way, setting and a play style he wants to try with system.

I'm fairly sure that's the idea at work. Which I completely understand may well be the best approach in the long run, but I'm lazy and really don't like fiddling with mechanics. I also have a bit of an aversion to system crafting thanks to several years of going from game to house rules to home brew to new game in my older brother's games as he chased The Perfect System™. I don't think my current DM will run afoul of that, but it's still not an appealing prospect.

Quote from: Ravenswing;828760One of the problems with the D&D paradigm, I feel, is that it's traditionally promoted INcompetence outside your class abilities.  You're a magic-user, so you're not supposed to be able to fight.  You're a warrior, so you're not supposed to be stealthy.  Etc.

This is precisely why I've wanted to get away from Pathfinder (and classes in general). Inasmuch as I can be said to have a philosophy regarding RPGs it would probably be the Heinlein quote what ends with "specialization is for insects." Which isn't to say I want my characters to be universally competent, but the D&D paradigm of "X class does X really well and is generally pants at Y and Z*" drives me absolutely batty in games that aren't primarily about dungeon delving.

*Rogues being the exception, of course.

The thought (finally) occurs I should probably write something up to give a better idea of what we're trying to do and hopefully narrow down the breadth of info a bit. Hopefully I can find some time to sit down and hammer that out later.

It's 'grim and gritty' but Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying (any edition) is a skill based game worth considering.

It avoids the 'cherry picking' problem through careers, which are different from classes. A career governs what advances you can buy, so for example your career might only allow you to increase your weapon score once. Eventually you advance to a different career, and that might allow you to advance a skill further.

Quote from: woodsmoke;828876I would dearly love to just play Earthdawn again, but I'm fairly sure I rolled a critical fail on my persuasion check when I tried to sell it to my DM.

Just give her the corebook and a nightlight, it will sell itself. If that doesn't work, there is no hope.
Yes, I also have a soft spot for Earthdawn, warts and all.

RuneQuest Essentials is a cheap way of getting a skill-based game up and running. Call of Cthulhu has to be an option? Ye olde Warhammer is not so much skill-based as its own thing, but is a damn cool alternative to D&D.

I would also like to suggest Sertorius and Servants of Gaius by this forum's Bedrockbrendan. They are entirely skill based, using d10s - roll 1 to 3 and take the highest.

Quote from: Jame Rowe;828889I would also like to suggest Sertorius and Servants of Gaius by this forum's Bedrockbrendan. They are entirely skill based, using d10s - roll 1 to 3 and take the highest.

I reaqd through these and also thought they were very playable without being formulaic.

Agreed! Both are excellent games, and well worth a look!

-clash

Thanks. Just want to clarify that both those games were co-designed by Bill Butler and Dan Orcutt as well.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;828896Thanks. Just want to clarify that both those games were co-designed by Bill Butler and Dan Orcutt as well.

And extensively play tested too.

Quote from: baragei;828888RuneQuest Essentials is a cheap way of getting a skill-based game up and running.

Oh, yeah, in the same vein there's Legend (Mongoose) which is basically a first-draft of RQ6, in PDF for $1. It's probably a little more complete than RQ essentials, if less refined.

Quote from: baragei;828888Ye olde Warhammer is not so much skill-based as its own thing, but is a damn cool alternative to D&D.

My thinking was that having a profession in its own right doesn't give you much of anything beyond the ability to buy skills or stats (which are kind of skills when you are thinking of Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill).

Quote from: Ravenswing;828760I'm obviously a partisan of GURPS.But that being said ... look.  If I was a full-time adventurer, I'd want to have a little talent for stealth.  I'd want to be good enough with a weapon or some manner of martial art, so as to be able to defend myself even if I was the party REMF.  I'd want to be able to handle myself without being too clueless in a city, and I'd want to know some basics of camping and living off the land.

Totally off topic, this tells me that the character you (the generic you) want to be is a 'Thief/Rogue'.  Which frankly, is more of an 'everyman' than a 'Fighter' ever was.  Most of what you described, Ravenswing, are easily gained with a bit of training or more likely personal experience.  Sneaking around we learn as kids, weapons training is a little harder, but knives and clubs are relatively easy to pick up, comparatively, and if you adventure and survive you learn tricks that could be adapted to the short sword.  As for survival, both city and wilderness, all you need to is listen to others who have lived there and keep an open eye and mind.

This is nothing for nor against any skill or non-skill based game system, admittedly, but it's neat to me, just how much of this is 'I would like to play a semi-experienced rogue type.'