Are some skills more trouble than they're worth? In terms of mechanical integration, that is.
I know Perception gives people fits.
Crafting skills have to toe an very fine line between being effectively worthless or campaign-bustingly broken.*
Luck, as a skill, is tricky to implement in a way that isn't metagamey/immersion-breaking.
What skills give you the most trouble and what do you do about it?
*Plus, I want doers, not makers. I'm not too fond of crafting. Maybe in Harn or something.
This is such a wide-open question, it all depends on how the game implements things.
For me, it's skills that work one way on an ally, and another on hostiles, that are really a problem.
I'm surprise Persuasion isn't on your list. That (or Bluff) can get totally out of control, very quickly.
Of your list, I'd go with Crafting as the hardest one to get right. I don't think I've ever seen a game do it right, truth be told. The closest would be Asheron's Call's Alchemy, and then only when it came to making one particular thing. It wasn't brokenly powerful, it was quite useful and it wasn't as skill that anyone could pick up easily.
Like nearly everything in RPGs in one players hands the exact same skill is overpowered while in anothers its too weak.
I actually rather like the crafting skill in 5e as it allows for some interesting work to be made by a PC or to guage what commissioning work from others will go. So if the fighter wants a +1 sword made for them we know the cost and time frame that will take. Or how much and long it will take a PC to craft their own crossbow.
Perception in 5e I think works pretty well too. Other editions... well YMMV there.
Luck as a skill is one of those iffy things. It can be fairly passive and not intrude. Or it can be a real nuisance. Things like the Halfling and feat based luck seem to be ok overall and not get too out of hand or intrusive.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;931822Are some skills more trouble than they're worth? In terms of mechanical integration, that is.
They can be, depending on the players, what they want, and the related rules and the way the GM applies them.
That is, for any skill, how do the GM and players want that aspect of the game to be handled, and do the rules for that skill match? If they match, great. To the degree that they don't and to the degree people care/notice, there may be issues.
QuoteI know Perception gives people fits.
It depends, as above. As a newbie TFT GM, I had to figure out the effect of high-IQ characters noticing many things, low-IQ characters failing to notice many things, and characters with perception talents being really good at spotting things others usually won't. It meant I needed to assign different difficulties that I thought at first, and that I ought to have a few different levels of discovery, so that different types of characters are likely to notice what they would notice. That is, the main issue I'm aware of is when a system offers a wide range of ability levels, and the GM hasn't processed the math of that and/or hasn't figured out appropriate ways to GM the limits and nature of what being extremely perceptive should and shouldn't provide.
QuoteCrafting skills have to toe an very fine line between being effectively worthless or campaign-bustingly broken.*
Seems like a playstyle thing which just makes sense and is only a problem for players stuck in the crude orientation to games that "it's a thing I can give my character so I want it to be cool and worth the points I spend on it even in a game not about that thing". If it's an adventure game where no one else wants to get a forge and spend months while a PC is busy forging a sword, then of course that's an issue. It's also an issue if the rules/GM make it too cheap/easy to make an effective adventurer who is also a crafter who can crank out better gear than the party can get from other means, unless you weren't interested in the aspects of play where players try to get good gear from other means. It's just a mismatch between player, playstyle, rules and/or GM somewhere. Expectations may be getting set in places by games designed to gratify players' desires at the expense of making sense, such as MMORPGs.
QuoteLuck, as a skill, is tricky to implement in a way that isn't metagamey/immersion-breaking.
Again, it depends on the players. Luck tends to be pretty meta and people can have different ideas about what luck is. For those with an understanding of mathematical material/mechanical luck, a Luck skill or power shouldn't exist unless it's a magic/supernatural power, so the players with Luck skill may look like they just have cheat/fudge powers. So it can annoy/alienate players who feel that way. I tend to ignore/disallow/limit Luck or make it something specific that makes some sort of explicit sense.
QuoteWhat skills give you the most trouble and what do you do about it?
Detect Lies is a classic for me, because it tends to suggest mechanics where players may not have the same ideas about how it should work. There can be several logical traps in having someone roll to detect lies.
Other social skills that offer mechanics for social interactions tend to be problems, because game mechanics that provide concrete results tend to not work the way real people actually work, because people and social situations are often not simple. As a woman once speculated about how the playing the James Bond RPG might go something like, "roll to see if you can resist James' charms. Nope, you can't!"
Also, some players don't have the interest, will or social skills to match their PCs, or even to know the difference, and/or players may try to roleplay and roll dice and not do a good job of figuring out what to do with the two.
I have ways I like to handle social interactions in RPGs, and ways I don't, and the main problem I still run into is with incompatible players, though as with most things that just gets discussed and handled.
Like so many things, for me it tends to come down to choosing rules and designing characters that match the game I want to play, and ignoring or using GM discretion for the rest.
Quote from: Doom;931824I'm surprise Persuasion isn't on your list. That (or Bluff) can get totally out of control, very quickly.
If you treat it like an at-will Charm Person, then, yeah, it's bonkers. The way I handle it is to make it clear that you can never persuade someone to do something that they wouldn't do of their own volition under the right circumstances. So, maybe the local crime boss has been waiting for the right time to run a rival mob out of town. You could persuade him that
now is the time (so your allies can retrieve the MacGuffin from the rival's HQ in the resulting chaos, etc.).
Often combat skills seem to be an issue. Who's not going to blow all their points and just raise their weaponry skill to max ? Not if they have sometimes else to do in combat (e.g. magic) but generally there's a sameness between characters because everyone becomes a 'fighter', primarily.
As far as fixing it, sometimes there's a cost multiplier, sometimes there's a skill maximum, sometimes just a big list of specific weapons or other skills (has its own problems, e.g. random magic weapons are junk), sometimes there's a costing curve so at some point you give up and instead of +1 to sword you get +lots to something else.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;931928If you treat it like an at-will Charm Person, then, yeah, it's bonkers. The way I handle it is to make it clear that you can never persuade someone to do something that they wouldn't do of their own volition under the right circumstances. So, maybe the local crime boss has been waiting for the right time to run a rival mob out of town. You could persuade him that now is the time (so your allies can retrieve the MacGuffin from the rival's HQ in the resulting chaos, etc.).
What I found with those Skills in the system that people treated it as an 'At-Will Charm Spell' was they didn't read the language or the intent. Let's face it, whenever you talk to someone, they have their own goals and agenda, and will want to push it on others if they can. However, most of the time people (or creatures) will compromise, maybe edge out a thing or two extra for themselves, but they'll concede a bit.
Let's say you're trying to finagle a magic doohicky from the hoard of a dragon. Now, the particulars aren't really relevant save two: You want because of X, and the Dragon wants to keep it because he thinks it's his. Now, assuming it devolves into a skill roll, and you managed to score really well.
Here's the thing: That could mean many a thing, and the DM should decide what it really does. First off, the player won, OK, what does that mean? Does it mean that the Dragon hands it without a fuss? Maybe, and if it does, it doesn't mean that the next the players negotiate they'll have an advantage. It could also mean that the Dragon gives the magic item with a stipulation, like wanting it back when the PC's are done.
And then you have to consider the other party, keeping with my example, a Dragon concept of time may be very different. The Players may keep the item for the rest of their careers (and long after the campaign ends) but for the Dragon, he'll get it back, as the PCs will be long dead before him, so it's not a big thing to let them have it for 20-40 years (or more.)
But it's easier to let it be an 'at-will charm' because a fair amount of DM/GMs don't care enough to put motivations and reasons, and then they whine when players get lucky, and the DM hands over everything, instead of thinking it through.
Reading this thread is making my eyes twitch. Y'all are nailing it.
For me, I think the longer the list, the more problems will pop up in implementing balance of the skills in actual play, and perhaps worse, the more likely the author will have super skills like "Stealth" and highly specific one like "Radio Repair" in the same list.
I am not a D20 fan, but their list and implementation was pretty good.
As a Palladium fan, I...need a drink.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;931960What I found with those Skills in the system that people treated it as an 'At-Will Charm Spell' was they didn't read the language or the intent. . . . But it's easier to let it be an 'at-will charm' because a fair amount of DM/GMs don't care enough to put motivations and reasons, and then they whine when players get lucky, and the DM hands over everything, instead of thinking it through.
As if the US election wasn't sign enough, CB and I strongly agree on something twice in the same week - truly The End Is Extremely Fucking Nigh.
My game of choice, Fudge, doesn't come with a default skill list, so I've spent a lot of time thinking about these sorts of questions.
I split perception into two different types: physical perception and social perception. That way you can have a character who's good at spotting traps in a dungeon but not so good at noticing when somebody bluffing him. Or vice versa.
Crafting has never come up in my games, even when the players have been given carte blanche to make their own skill lists. Make of that what you will.
I wouldn't treat Luck as a skill, I'd treat it as a metagame bonus. There are plenty of systems that handle it like that; fudge points, drama points, hero points, action points, whatever. The idea is that players get a set number of meta-narrative points that they can spend to get a bonus on a roll, and they regain those points at set intervals and/or by acting a certain way in-game.
Otherwise, what's the point of having "lucky" as a separate trait? Rolling dice already represents a measure of luck, so having an additional luck trait would effectively just be a bonus to rolls. Shifting it to a meta-game economy is just a way to prevent it from being overpowered.
Alternatively, you could treat luck as something outside of the character's control and roll the dice without any skill modifiers. Dungeon World does this for its "not dying" roll; instead of rolling 2d6 plus the character's stat the character just rolls 2d6.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;931822Are some skills more trouble than they're worth? In terms of mechanical integration, that is.
No, as far as I'm concerned:).
Yes, probably, for other people.
Seriously, did you expect an answer that applies to all game groups out there;)?
Quote from: AsenRG;932058No, as far as I'm concerned:).
Yes, probably, for other people.
Seriously, did you expect an answer that applies to all game groups out there;)?
Not looking for consensus, just discussion.
Sense Motive.
You may as well not even bother roleplaying with this skill around.
It's real annoying when you have players trying to make a Sense Motive check in a system that doesn't have it, like 1st edition AD&D. They just take it for granted.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;931822Are some skills more trouble than they're worth? In terms of mechanical integration, that is.
I know Perception gives people fits.
Crafting skills have to toe an very fine line between being effectively worthless or campaign-bustingly broken.*
Luck, as a skill, is tricky to implement in a way that isn't metagamey/immersion-breaking.
What skills give you the most trouble and what do you do about it?
*Plus, I want doers, not makers. I'm not too fond of crafting. Maybe in Harn or something.
The biggest thing is really learning how to balance out skills like Crafts (coming from an NWOD perspective --- obvs...). PCs are technically enabled to create more-or-less whatever they want through Crafts and Science and to a lesser extent Computer and Survival. A significant minority of the player populations in general across medium-to-heavy systems will absolutely develop crafting skills if the GM empowers them to do so through freedom to create and reward for putting the in-game time and money and effort and then the EXP into making use of such skills.
Even when I GM'd Only War, I had one PC who was an absolute crafting beast and ended up creating twin-linked, sentry lascannons affixed from above the campsite they made in a crashed helicraft because he could. The PC was so specialised in crafting and repairs and stuff that he couldn't really fight or do anything else but man could he take random pieces of junk and make a motherfucker. Then again, this was a game where I used a custom sub-system to allow PCs to start off with IP and CP -- the latter leading to a PC being able to Phase. Hah hah!
(I'm such a nice GM! But they had fun in the end)
I recently implemented -- due to balance concerns -- a rebalanced method of detecting ambushes and other dangerous surprises (still undecided about making a Trap Sense Merit, though). As we've got a lot of overlap in perceptive ability, in order to reward explorer and stealth-build characters, a PC has to make a [WTS+SURV] roll to detect ambushes every time now instead of [WTS+CMP]. It makes [SURV] actually fucking useful to everyone and I've legit seen players be like "lemme' get a dot of that Survival, oh yeah". I also turned Danger Sense from being a useless-fucking-Merit-to-higher-than-starting-characters to now simply enabling PCs to use [WTS+CMP] INSTEAD OF [WTS+SURV]. Suddenly, that Merit is incredibly popular.
What gets me are the underrated, criminally underappreciated Skills like Politics. That is insanely powerful when used right (which is all the fucking time): it is more-or-less "GM, give me your notes" on organizations, prominent peepz, overall and specific social-political/poli-economic situations and is also incredibly useful for enabling players to quickly ascend power structures, navigate and manipulate bureaucracies, power-broke and generally lord over the other PCs. We will be beginning our club's Consensus next week and I dread to think about how it will go down if Vampire gets voted in and one of my players has more than a casual think about powering their Politics (these people do not fuck around on their sheets!). Other good ones are Socialize (the dude/dudette with this will have the Sheriff pining over them like a darling) and even Expression is good when you've got the right mindset (you've become the Sting of the NWOD writing your own Every Breath You Take. Every. Single. Time. Making bank, bank, BANK! Of course, you'll need -- or a friendly PC'll need -- a healthy dose of [MNP], [PERS],
, [ACAD], [PLTC]).
I think this naturally leads to a wider discussion of the use of Attributes in-game and when they should be used and the problems that can occur when a system relies extensively on one or two (DEX and INT the two biggies from Pathfinder) to the detriment of the rest.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;932084Not looking for consensus, just discussion.
Thing is, I can't even discuss it until you answer the question "for what kind of game":).
A game with omnicompetent pulp-like characters doesn't gain much by fragmenting the skills much. In it having separate skills for sailing a ship and driving a canoe is problematic...you're better off with something like the Careers system from Barbarians of Lemuria, where both are just "Career: Sailor".
A game focused on non-pulp pirates probably has those, and you could argue it needs them.
A game where the setting features lots of fencing schools might require different skills for rapier, sabre and epee, but probably only one skill for "shooting".
A game about special forces ops probably has multiple skills for firearms, and only one for "blades".
A game which focuses on political intrigue more and less on duels might only have "blades" and "guns".
All three would need exactly the skill list they got.
So, which skills are problematic? Depends. What kind of game are we talking about;)?
Quote from: AsenRG;932381Thing is, I can't even discuss it until you answer the question "for what kind of game":).
A game with omnicompetent pulp-like characters doesn't gain much by fragmenting the skills much. In it having separate skills for sailing a ship and driving a canoe is problematic...you're better off with something like the Careers system from Barbarians of Lemuria, where both are just "Career: Sailor".
Ah, gotcha.
I am, in fact, working on Occupations for my Pulp game. I like BoL, but I'm going for one notch finer on the granularity meter. So, two to three one-word, generic skills per Occupation.
I like the term "omnicompetent." Not every PC in my game will be Doc Savage, however; there will be nosy reporters and down-on their-luck PIs and light-fingered street urchins. It's like a very pulpy Call of Cthulhu.
My idea with this thread is to probe for any blind spots I might have regarding skills, so any insights are appreciated. Thanks to those who have contributed so far.
I find the skills given in a game to usually be less of a problem than what clever players can and will do with the skills available. Like spells and class or racial abilities some players are very good at finding uses for skills. Other players could be given "Win the Game" at 98% and still would complain that their character couldn't do anything.
As a general rule of thumb I find that the broader the skill is the smaller its mechanical impact on the game should be.
"Wilderness Survival" is a hugely broad skill and could be applied to doing almost anything outside of an urban environment. The same trap you set to catch supper could easily be set to catch the pursuing bad guys. Wilderness Survival here serves as Trap Setting. Next time it might stand in for Tracking, or Construction to build a shelter. Gem cutting on the other hand is going to be useful in far fewer situations, but in those situations no other skill is likely to matter.
There are two ways to go wrong with skills. Actully only one way with two consequences. Dont make you skills too gamey.
First you can make your skills gates behind which the adventure waits. Fail you track roll, well shit you were supposed to track the kidnapped princess.
Second you can make them magic spells, persuade the guard, ok you can go talk to the king and keep your weapons.
Role play the skills dont rollplay them and it will be fine.
Quote from: Cave Bear;932092Sense Motive.
You may as well not even bother roleplaying with this skill around.
It's real annoying when you have players trying to make a Sense Motive check in a system that doesn't have it, like 1st edition AD&D. They just take it for granted.
This, a thousand times this. Sense Motive is a garbage skill and I loathe it.
Yeah 3e players trying to shoehorn it or any other "RP skill" from 3e into 1e games should be flogged.
And not in the the good way.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;932428Ah, gotcha.
I am, in fact, working on Occupations for my Pulp game. I like BoL, but I'm going for one notch finer on the granularity meter. So, two to three one-word, generic skills per Occupation.
I like the term "omnicompetent." Not every PC in my game will be Doc Savage, however; there will be nosy reporters and down-on their-luck PIs and light-fingered street urchins. It's like a very pulpy Call of Cthulhu.
My idea with this thread is to probe for any blind spots I might have regarding skills, so any insights are appreciated. Thanks to those who have contributed so far.
Aren't nosy reporters just "pulp heroes on lower power level"? Or even "pulp heroes on the same power levels, who invested a whole lot into contacts instead of practical skills"?
It would help if you offered us a provisional skill list to discuss, because I can imagine several ways to make "two or three skills per occupation".
Perception and Influence need to be treated very differently than other abilities for reasons I currently lack the time to get into. In short though, one obfuscates the choices available to the player, while the other makes those choices for them.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;931822Are some skills more trouble than they're worth? In terms of mechanical integration, that is.
I know Perception gives people fits.
Crafting skills have to toe an very fine line between being effectively worthless or campaign-bustingly broken.*
Luck, as a skill, is tricky to implement in a way that isn't metagamey/immersion-breaking.
What skills give you the most trouble and what do you do about it?
*Plus, I want doers, not makers. I'm not too fond of crafting. Maybe in Harn or something.
I'm not sure what you mean by skill, unless it is in name only. Perception is often treated as an attribute, along the lines of strength or dexterity. Likewise luck.
On Perception: this one can be those most metagamey IMO, just asking for such a check provides information the character does not have. Solution, the GM makes the roll instead of the player.
On Crafting: this depends on the kind of game you want to play. I make it both expensive in time and money to craft things of significance, and use the need to find the "components" to drive adventure and player choices. For example, using a fireball is contraindicated for any creature you need the hair/fur/feathers from. Using cutting weapons may be a bad idea on something you need the blood from. You may also need to obtain components under the correct phase of the moon, position of the planets and stars, just like in real world works on magic form the middle ages, limiting when you may do things. Also, don't let crafting be uber customizable, with any spell in any thing, make it very restricted. In addition, you need to control how magic itens stack. Lastly, there needs to be a chance of failure (losing al your time and money) and a chance of your item actually being "cursed" and not knowing it until it is too late. These are good balances for getting exactly the item you want when you want it at a cheap price that is the down side of crafting.
On Luck: the metagamey/immersion issue is a nonissue. It really is all in your head and how easily swayed by grammar you are. Instead of saying "the orc hits you in the head" you say "absent some amazing move or luck the orc blade is going to bash your head" The later saves your spoken narrative from the possible saving effects of luck. If you forget and say the first phrase, so what, you are an adult and just say "your skill and luck saved you, you turned what could have been a crushing blow into a grazing one" Another common approach is to declare use of luck before knowing the outcome. Yet another is to make luck an expendable basically non-renewable resource. Lastly, if luck is a "skill" that you use to avoid things it is more like parry or a saving through, and you handle it that way to avoid metagamey/ immersion breaking.
It's not skills that give me trouble it is how the game system uses them. When they substitute for or take precedence over player action and thinking. Find Traps in AD&D I've seen implemented (incorrectly IMHO) in the most immersion breaking way of all the skills I've seen in games.
Oh, I didn't think magic items when I saw "crafting", I though mundane items and wondered how that could be campaign-bustingly broken.
In my campaign creating even the simplest magic item requires special materials and preparation, never just a simple toss of the dice. If a GM is letting players have any magic whatnot they can concieve of in their grimy, little, black hearts just because they rolled well on the dice, well, they have only themselves to blame for making it so easy.
Quote from: DavetheLost;932539Oh, I didn't think magic items when I saw "crafting", I though mundane items and wondered how that could be campaign-bustingly broken.
In my campaign creating even the simplest magic item requires special materials and preparation, never just a simple toss of the dice. If a GM is letting players have any magic whatnot they can concieve of in their grimy, little, black hearts just because they rolled well on the dice, well, they have only themselves to blame for making it so easy.
I actually like crafting on normal items. I don't put many restrictions on such skills, nor really detail them out. I've rarely seen players choose such in over 35 years of playing. The few times I have they have been pretty cool, one player choose fletcher as a background, I think twice in a 6 year campaign he used it to make an emergency resupply of arrows. Otherwise, it has been brewing or distilling it seems, for color and the players personal background. :) The players that choose this often use it to enhance social interaction and value wine. My view of the history I've read is that alcohol consumption was much more pronounced in pre-industrial societies (even if it is just small beer) so NPCs value the knowledge those who can brew or distill have.
In my experience though, characters become "wealthy" fairly quickly in the sense that it is so much easier just to buy mundane items than make them.
I personally don't envision much abuse with more mundane crafting skills, maybe because I have had an abiding interest as a kid and know a fair amount of book/TV knowledge about it and have personally done pottery, smithing, fletching, brewing, distilling, basket weaving, brick laying, ditch digging, framing, rock wall building, and glass working and blowing; and a whole bunch of other do-it-yourself experience from living on a farm for a time as a kid. :) I'm interested in what abuses you've seen with mundane skills.
Quote from: AsenRG;932500It would help if you offered us a provisional skill list to discuss, because I can imagine several ways to make "two or three skills per occupation".
Sure, check this out:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35630-Harg-s-Pulp-Homebrew-The-Basics (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35630-Harg-s-Pulp-Homebrew-The-Basics)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;932476This, a thousand times this. Sense Motive is a garbage skill and I loathe it.
So the skill to read another person's body language doesn't exist to you?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;932476Yeah 3e players trying to shoehorn it or any other "RP skill" from 3e into 1e games should be flogged.
And not in the the good way.
Back in AD&D 2e, we used to use just Wisdom for it, the skill Sense Motive (and now Insight) just codified it for us.
Again, it strikes me as another one of those skills that require a lot of GM work to interpret, which quite a few don't seem to want to put any effort into it.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;932564Sure, check this out:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35630-Harg-s-Pulp-Homebrew-The-Basics (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35630-Harg-s-Pulp-Homebrew-The-Basics)
It's a good start, now cull all but 30 of them and fold them in the existing ones.
Seriously, you have ~90 skills in a pulp game, not counting that 3 of them are "any musical instrument, any language, any sport"? That's way too much.
Quote from: AsenRG;932571Seriously, you have ~90 skills in a pulp game, not counting that 3 of them are "any musical instrument, any language, any sport"? That's way too much.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :cool:
I'm working on it. My vision for character creation right now is thus: choose an Occupation, add an optional Talent/Background, go. Simple, simple, simple.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;932585Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. :cool:
Which you asked for, IIRC. Well, there it is, I didn't promise you're going to like it;).
QuoteI'm working on it. My vision for character creation right now is thus: choose an Occupation, add an optional Talent/Background, go. Simple, simple, simple.
Quick character generation is good, but not really connected to the number of skills and the resulting competence levels, which might be broad or narrow:p.
Quote from: AsenRG;932586Which you asked for, IIRC. Well, there it is, I didn't promise you're going to like it;).
But, of course. Do your worst. ;)
I did already.
I don't really have a problem with any specific skills, but I hate when skills ambiguously overlap. I've been playing the FFG Star Wars games since playtest, and I still can't always tell where the breaks between Cool & Discipline, Deception & Skulduggery, Perception & Vigilance, and a few other edge cases are supposed to be drawn. Of course, this is a game where you use the same skill for piloting both a walker and a low-orbit-capable airspeeder (or just as oddly, a capital starship and a starfighter walking on legs...), so it's not the most rigorous of skill systems to begin with.
Beyond the Wall has a playbook for the Assistant Beast Keeper which can give both the Animal Ken and Animal Lore skills, with no definition of either skill. It is left entirely to the GM to decide if either or both apply in any given situation.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;932585Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :cool:
And you should heed it.
Remember, Question Authority, then listen very closely to the fucking answer.
I find the perception skill is typically head and shoulders more useful than any other skill, which I dislike.
Quote from: Psikerlord;932863I find the perception skill is typically head and shoulders more useful than any other skill, which I dislike.
I find this to be as it should be;).
Quote from: Psikerlord;932863I find the perception skill is typically head and shoulders more useful than any other skill, which I dislike.
How about adding Perception as a new ability score and just roll it like you would any other strength or dex check?
Quote from: hedgehobbit;932891How about adding Perception as a new ability score and just roll it like you would any other strength or dex check?
He did exactly that in his game, check his signature;).
Quote from: hedgehobbit;932891How about adding Perception as a new ability score and just roll it like you would any other strength or dex check?
This is the Fallout S.P.E.C.I.A.L. approach; to Luck as well. Another approach is to make it similar to a save/ability such as in Dragon Warriors; an approach that is highly recommended.
Quote from: Psikerlord;932863I find the perception skill is typically head and shoulders more useful than any other skill, which I dislike.
Quote from: AsenRG;932868I find this to be as it should be;).
I agree with Asen, perception is a skill, we call it many things, but I like what Sherlock Holmes calls it "Observation". It's a trained ability that's important for both realism and plausibility reasons. Realism: Humans base 90% of their sensory input into their visual sense, everything we do tends to lead back to what something LOOKS like, whether it's taste, sounds, smells, we assign a visual to it. This detail of human life leads into the plausibility factor, our fiction is abound with people who have the mental acuety to understand what their sense are telling them when they enter a room of a crime.
It's a trained ability. Is it important? Yes, it's possibly the most important skill any 'adventurer' should have. Which is why I give it out for free in the majority of the games I run (Depending on what the setting is of course.)
Random, unconnected thoughts inspired by the OP--
Any social skill runs into problems, because X% of any gaming group is going to want to play someone more (or even less) capable of influencing others than they are, but Y% will feel that it cheapens their attempts to actually use their roleplayed words and arguments as an avenue of success.
Perception has a bit of this, as it can easily compete with "I look at the wall, is there any possibility that there's a secret door there?" and otherwise get rewarding for thinking things out. OTOH, there are things beyond a players control about what their character sees or notices that should be adjudicated by a dice roll (which is either a skill check or a skill-by-another-name check).
I never much liked the late 1e and 2e AD&D (and BECMI D&D) skill systems, as before you implemented them, the characters were usually omnicompetent medieval travelers (fully capable of riding horses, swimming when not armored, hunting, and starting a fire in all but a torrential downpour), but after had to choose a small subset of those abilities (with slots that were competed for with etiquette, weapon-smithing, and herbalism). I'm not even sure I like the addition of the thief class (even though I only experienced what it was like before they were introduced retroactively), as it either took away from what all characters once were able to do, or made two disparate systems to accomplish the same thing. Once 3e-5e made skills an integrated part of the game, I'm fine with it.
More purely skill based systems (like GURPS, etc.), usually the issue becomes how to split up skills, or whether each one should cost as much as the others. I think GURPS 3e had both cryptography and cryptanalysis, which seriously what am I supposed to do with this? GURPS at least had expensive and cheap skills. Other systems often adding the crafting skill is just a skill tax for the person who wants to add flavor to their character (unless, again, if crafting lets you turn junk piles into magic item equivalents).
Yeah, I think that perception is usually better handled as a straightforward ability score check. Characters who have some kind of racial bonus or amazing special training to increase their perceptive powers can get some small bonus.
I've designed tons of skill lists for my BRP, and FUDGE games, and for my own homebrews. It's is tedious work.
2 consistent problems I run into:
1) Balancing skill breadth and usefulness. Related problems are a) having enough skills to provide necessary detail but keeping the list as short as reasonably possible. b) balancing game-usefulness with "real-world" difficulty (It is easier to learn to swing a sword than to learn a new language - but the former is generally much more useful in a game than the latter).
2) Some "skills" are more dependent on natural ability than others, have different learning curves, or different maximum potential. This may seem fiddly, but it is the problem with perception and sense motive. These aren't things you can typically train to do. Similarly, it is hard to interpret "dodge" as a skill in the same way as "history," "perform" or "craft." You can perfect your ability to play a musical instrument with training and practice, but your ability to get out of harms way in an instant of action is more a function of agility and intuition (unless it's some kind of ninja game). Similarly, some skills can be honed to finer point than others, so a rapier should have a higher max skill level than a 2 handed sword skill.
I have come up with kludges to address all of these issues on a skill by skill basis for many games, especially BRP, and they work, but I think the heart of the problem is in the distinction between attributes and skills. If you remove that distinction, and can swallow some abstraction, many of these problems go away (often to be replaced by a new set of problems).
Quote from: RPGPundit;934118Yeah, I think that perception is usually better handled as a straightforward ability score check. Characters who have some kind of racial bonus or amazing special training to increase their perceptive powers can get some small bonus.
OTOH, I find that perception is very much a skill. People often don't realize when they have been practicing it, but it is developed with practice and exercises like any skill.
Quote from: Madprofessor;934265I've designed tons of skill lists for my BRP, and FUDGE games, and for my own homebrews. It's is tedious work.
2 consistent problems I run into:
1) Balancing skill breadth and usefulness. Related problems are a) having enough skills to provide necessary detail but keeping the list as short as reasonably possible. b) balancing game-usefulness with "real-world" difficulty (It is easier to learn to swing a sword than to learn a new language - but the former is generally much more useful in a game than the latter).
2) Some "skills" are more dependent on natural ability than others, have different learning curves, or different maximum potential. This may seem fiddly, but it is the problem with perception and sense motive. These aren't things you can typically train to do. Similarly, it is hard to interpret "dodge" as a skill in the same way as "history," "perform" or "craft." You can perfect your ability to play a musical instrument with training and practice, but your ability to get out of harms way in an instant of action is more a function of agility and intuition (unless it's some kind of ninja game). Similarly, some skills can be honed to finer point than others, so a rapier should have a higher max skill level than a 2 handed sword skill.
I have come up with kludges to address all of these issues on a skill by skill basis for many games, especially BRP, and they work, but I think the heart of the problem is in the distinction between attributes and skills. If you remove that distinction, and can swallow some abstraction, many of these problems go away (often to be replaced by a new set of problems).
I find it amazing that you managed to write a post where I disagree with basically every single sentence, and yet you just did:D!
An easy solution to skills like Perception is to have the GM decide when to roll those on behalf of the player. That makes it more of a passive, you happen to notice, kind of thing, and not this button they can push to make sure they've combed through an area sufficiently (if you are trying to encourage getting them to engage with the surrounding environment and be more specific about their exploration).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;934472An easy solution to skills like Perception is to have the GM decide when to roll those on behalf of the player. That makes it more of a passive, you happen to notice, kind of thing, and not this button they can push to make sure they've combed through an area sufficiently (if you are trying to encourage getting them to engage with the surrounding environment and be more specific about their exploration).
This.
Just because you roll high doesn't mean you spot anything of useful notice. (I usually joke as if they've gained Enhanced Senses, "You see through Time! You hear the leaves breathing, see the water vapor move about you...") In fact, like Move Silently, it tends to make the player more active and descriptive of their search if the roll is behind the screen and are left to assume "you noticed everything immediately interesting," ("you always think you move silently!") :)
I don't care how high your passive Perception or Spot roll is, if you don't open the box you don't suddenly get X-Ray vision to compensate.
Interact, don't just throw dice at the fictive world.
My favourite way of simulating awareness is not through a distinct perception skill but through all regular skills.
The type of check and who has a chance of discovering something is dependent on the info to be found.
Make characters do a combat skill check to anticipate an ambush, or a library use skill check to find irregularities or hints in the arrangement of books on a shelf, or an architecture skill check to find that a building's construction materials act as a conduit for summoning Babylonian gods.
People will notice stuff out of line in those fields that they are competent in.
Quote from: AsenRG;934469I find it amazing that you managed to write a post where I disagree with basically every single sentence, and yet you just did:D!
Then my purpose here is complete! Disagreeing with you is part of my hobby. Funny thing is, I'm not even sure I agree with myself half the time. Cheers anyway!
Quote from: Madprofessor;934762Then my purpose here is complete! Disagreeing with you is part of my hobby. Funny thing is, I'm not even sure I agree with myself half the time. Cheers anyway!
Well, then you score a great achievement in your hobby;). Now let's move on, I don't see a reason to make the disagreement public.
Not sure how you manage to disagree with yourself, but congratulations on having found a way, BTW:D!
I really like the "skill system" from Barbarians of Lemuria. You just have levels in different careers. If you attempt a task that one of your careers would be good at, you get add your level in that career as a bonus.
So for perception or sense motive, a "spy" could certainly add his level towards reading someones lips, gathering information, or noticing a dagger hidden behind a cloak, but that same spy would likely be oblivious that a predator was stalking him in a jungle. I pirate might notice that he is being cheated at cards, where a barbarian, despite his instincts, would have no clue. A thief would notice traps and have a nose for where the treasure is hidden, but pay no heed to the smoke of a burning village on the horizon. A soldier might know the resolve of his enemies, but completely confused by the intricacies of court etiquette. Etc. All of this communicated by very simple mechanics e.g. spy level 2, and soldier level 1 - on the character sheet.
The biggest complaint about the setup is that it is, to an extent, it is a GM judgement call as to whether a particular career will apply to a given situation, but I think that's more feature than flaw.
I think the thief should pay attention to the smoke of burning village, but then that's something to debate with the GM:).
And yes, I also consider it among the best systems for light games, though I add to it a list of modifiers for "stuff pirates do all the time" and "stuff pirates have more experience in than the average blacksmith, but that they don't do all that often". Just remember to cap the negative modifiers to the level of skill in the career, and you have a system where a Pirate 0 is more useful than not having Pirate at all, but having a low skill like Soldier 1 never screws you over in related fields;).
Well, to break the perception discussion, what about Intimidation? I wrote a whole thing about it here (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2016/09/intimidation-should-it-be-skill-also.html); but basically it is either deception, combat or common sense, not a separate skill.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;935035Well, to break the perception discussion, what about Intimidation? I wrote a whole thing about it here (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2016/09/intimidation-should-it-be-skill-also.html); but basically it is either deception, combat or common sense, not a separate skill.
I disagree, having met several bullies whose bullying threats had nothing to do with their combat ability, common sense, or deception. They just had an unwise bad habit of trying to intimidate people. If it was part of another skill, it would be something to do with sensing and exploiting people they could manipulate. The weasel skill? I can easily think of people who have deception, combat, common sense and/or weasel skills, but no particular talent for intimidation. So I'd have intimidation be it's own skill, even of other skills and traits can contribute to its effectiveness.
Quote from: Skarg;935038I disagree, having met several bullies whose bullying threats had nothing to do with their combat ability, common sense, or deception. They just had an unwise bad habit of trying to intimidate people. If it was part of another skill, it would be something to do with sensing and exploiting people they could manipulate. The weasel skill? I can easily think of people who have deception, combat, common sense and/or weasel skills, but no particular talent for intimidation. So I'd have intimidation be it's own skill, even of other skills and traits can contribute to its effectiveness.
I mean, were they actually
skilled in intimidation? I can see it, but most bullies I've met were just bigger / more numerous / higher in the hierarchy than their target... So complying is sometimes just common sense. An effective "intimidator" would be the weak, poor, unarmed guy facing Conan and making him say "well, better not mess with this guy, he looks dangerous". I mean, it is possible, but I'm not sure it is an useful enpugh archetype that I would need to include it in my games.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;935039I mean, it is possible, but I'm not sure it is an useful enpugh archetype that I would need to include it in my games.
Depends on the game being played. In superhero vs. villain, intimidation is a big deal. Hero system manages that with a Presence test (which is an attribute test, which is a skill test by another name)
Quote from: Eric Diaz;935039I mean, were they actually skilled in intimidation? I can see it, but most bullies I've met were just bigger / more numerous / higher in the hierarchy than their target... So complying is sometimes just common sense. An effective "intimidator" would be the weak, poor, unarmed guy facing Conan and making him say "well, better not mess with this guy, he looks dangerous". I mean, it is possible, but I'm not sure it is an useful enpugh archetype that I would need to include it in my games.
They had some skill, but not a lot. Their Manipulative Asshole skill was higher than their intimidation, and they would not have been as successful at intimidation if they were not very large. Conan would not have been impressed.
Intimidation is pretty awkward as a mechanical skill methinks. It's doable, but I mostly see it as a function of role playing. Context makes all the difference - relative power, leverage, social conventions, presence of friends, vulnerability, etc. It is a tactical consideration based on the situation. I almost think it works better to just use will as a defensive save against an opponent who has gathered the power and advantages for intimidation.
Quote from: Madprofessor;935104Context makes all the difference
Agreed. I was thinking on this earlier... if I'd ever known anyone who was consistently intimidating and I couldn't come up with anyone. I have a friend who scares a lot of people, but other friends of mine just find him annoying and juvenile. I think you'd have to have some perceptible, accepted power over a person before any skill of wielding that power could come into play.
Quote from: Simlasa;935114Agreed. I was thinking on this earlier... if I'd ever known anyone who was consistently intimidating and I couldn't come up with anyone. I have a friend who scares a lot of people, but other friends of mine just find him annoying and juvenile. I think you'd have to have some perceptible, accepted power over a person before any skill of wielding that power could come into play.
Yeah, I think the best way to handle intimidation in a game is that both sides take the danger of the situation into consideration, and the intimidating side role plays their threats. If PC are the targets of the intimidation, the player should be allowed to choose their character's reaction in almost all circumstances without a roll (unless it is like a sanity check in CoC or similar). If NPCs are targets, the GM can either choose the NPCs' reaction or roll a wisdom or will save if he is unclear about their response. That's about it. - no need for an intimidation skill in most genres or settings.
I have seen GMs use the intimidation skill in 3e games like a magical power, causing fear-like effects that remove player or even NPC agency, and I think that is the wrong approach.
Watch movies/shows with Organized Crime or Corporate negotiations. Watch Westworld and see Anthony Hopkins talk to the QA Officer and the Board Member who both are trying to get him removed. There's your Intimidation. Implied Threat, politely delivered. :D
Quote from: Simlasa;935114Agreed. I was thinking on this earlier... if I'd ever known anyone who was consistently intimidating and I couldn't come up with anyone.
Any number of bouncers would fit.
Quote from: AsenRG;935397Any number of bouncers would fit.
Against other bouncers? Against the sheriff/president/king? Against armed assailants?
Quote from: Simlasa;935423Against other bouncers? Against the sheriff/president/king? Against armed assailants?
Including against people that are used to using violence to get what they want, yes. I've had one of those guys explaining what kind of phrases are going to legitimize you as someone not to be trifled with.
Now, a SEAL/Spetznatz or a mafia enforcer probably won't be intimidated by the same tactics, but that's an argument for including level in intimidation and resisting it, not against the skill.
Quote from: Simlasa;935423Against other bouncers? Against the sheriff/president/king? Against armed assailants?
Intimidation skill might be thought to include a bit of knowing whom to use it on and when. And weaponry and ability to actually back up intimidation with action can just be modifiers to the success calculation, which itself can be a matter of GM discretion taking into account even numeric ratings. I run GURPS where there are not only rules for various levels of all sorts of skills, and intimidation is a skill with various suggested modifiers that ties into the reaction roll system which has other various modifiers and rolls available... I use the numbers and have the modifiers in mind, but I almost never actually roll the dice and use the indicated result as written unless I'm wanting to experiment with it (e.g. for some un-roleplayed interaction between NPCs I'm fooling around with between sessions). For intimidation and most social skill uses, I note the skills levels and the situation and whatever roleplaying is involved, maybe roll the dice for a bit of random input, and then just use my judgment about what the results are and how they translate into behavior. Usually it's just "Oh this character has no Intimidation skill but that one has it at 13 - ok I'll roleplay them appropriately".
Quote from: CRKrueger;935204Watch movies/shows with Organized Crime or Corporate negotiations. Watch Westworld and see Anthony Hopkins talk to the QA Officer and the Board Member who both are trying to get him removed. There's your Intimidation. Implied Threat, politely delivered. :D
Fantastic scenes, BTW. But thew thing that makes the threat credible - or not, since the threat doesn't seem to work exactly as intended - is that he can back it up with power. Otherwise, it would be deception.
Guess that is the gist of my post - intimidation is just an specific form of deception when practiced against the strong, and just common sense when used against the weak.
Also, which stat should you use for intimidation? Charisma? But it seems like the more menacing types are the less likable ones. Strength? That is really silly - only the very stupid will tremble in front of a Fighter while laughing at a fireball.
Anthony Hopkins is a great example - he doesn't seem like a likable character at all, just someone smart and driven.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;935486Fantastic scenes, BTW. But thew thing that makes the threat credible - or not, since the threat doesn't seem to work exactly as intended - is that he can back it up with power. Otherwise, it would be deception.
Guess that is the gist of my post - intimidation is just an specific form of deception when practiced against the strong, and just common sense when used against the weak.
It's also the ability to present the threat as credible and to make the target realize you mean it.
QuoteAlso, which stat should you use for intimidation? Charisma? But it seems like the more menacing types are the less likable ones. Strength? That is really silly - only the very stupid will tremble in front of a Fighter while laughing at a fireball.
Your Wisdom modifier, multiplied by minus one. Only to be used without multiplication when the PC is a Cleric and makes it clear that he or she would consider it a religious duty to hurt the NPC unless...
And of course, the difference in levels would apply in either case;).
Also, you want some movie example about intimidation? Look at Jack Nickolson:D!
Quote from: Eric Diaz;935486Also, which stat should you use for intimidation? Charisma? But it seems like the more menacing types are the less likable ones. Strength? That is really silly - only the very stupid will tremble in front of a Fighter while laughing at a fireball.
Anthony Hopkins is a great example - he doesn't seem like a likable character at all, just someone smart and driven.
Being liked isn't just what Charisma is about. It's force of personality. You can be the nicest guy in the world, and still be an utter pushover. Take most 'fire and brimstone' style public speaker, they're not likeable, they are noticeable and impressive.
Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;931822Are some skills more trouble than they're worth? In terms of mechanical integration, that is.
I know Perception gives people fits.
Does it? Why?
I'll note that I don't see Perception as a skill, but an attribute. One that's sorely lacking from the Traditional OSR 6 in my opinion. Usually use Int as a substitute, but sometimes that feels like Int is being spread toothin, like how every character with high Dex is simultaneously a world-class acrobat and concert pianist.
QuoteCrafting skills have to toe an very fine line between being effectively worthless or campaign-bustingly broken.*
Again, have to ask how? I've never had this issue, and cant conceive of it.
QuoteLuck, as a skill, is tricky to implement in a way that isn't metagamey/immersion-breaking.
Perception might be a bit iffy,in that one could potentially train to improveit (though same goes for Strength, Agility, Common Sense, Constitution, etc), but I cannot in any way accept Luck
as a skill. You can't learn luck, you can't teach it. You can't improve it by any means that aren't supernatural or philosophical.
QuoteWhat skills give you the most trouble and what do you do about it?
None. My game used a small list of broad skill-groups, allows players the option of specializing as a trade of for better proficiency with smaller applicability, and work just fine as part of my overall system. In the 20 odd years I've essentially used the same system/skill list, I've never had a single problem.
Regarding Perception as a problematic skill:
Quote from: Tristram Evans;935657Does it? Why?
Perception bothers me in D&D 5e more than any other skill, because it's used to avoid traps and ambushes but not by a random roll, so the character with a slightly better passive Perception (essentially, score if you roll 10 on d20) is never surprised unless the character with a slightly lower score is also surprised. I liked the old roll for surprise, because sometimes the ranger was surprised on a 1 when nobody else was. Since a surprise round can be pretty devastating, it's the skill (well, with Stealth, which is the opposed skill) that has the biggest impact on combat.
QuoteI'll note that I don't see Perception as a skill, but an attribute. One that's sorely lacking from the Traditional OSR 6 in my opinion. Usually use Int as a substitute, but sometimes that feels like Int is being spread toothin, like how every character with high Dex is simultaneously a world-class acrobat and concert pianist.
5e uses Wisdom as the perception attribute (that is, the skill is based on Wisdom but proficiency gives a separate bonus based on level); so animals typically have decent Wisdom but very low Intelligence (and often some Keen Sense that gives advantage if the sense is relevant).
Regarding Crafting:
QuoteAgain, have to ask how? I've never had this issue, and cant conceive of it.
I think maybe if it becomes too cheap/easy to make very useful resources (imagine every PC with 100 healing potions or other magic items).
QuoteNone. My game used a small list of broad skill-groups, allows players the option of specializing as a trade of for better proficiency with smaller applicability, and work just fine as part of my overall system. In the 20 odd years I've essentially used the same system/skill list, I've never had a single problem.
The problems I've experienced come when a certain level of skill gives a qualitative difference (e.g., can craft magic items) or when a skill is so crucial that all characters are forced into an arms race over that skill to be viable.
The most problematic skills are social skills.
Quote from: RPGPundit;938214The most problematic skills are social skills.
Do you mean problematic for roleplayers, or problematic for people on the Internet? ;-)
My game doesn't have social skills, a common simple solution, but I found perception a tricky issue to resolve.
If you're asking players to roll then that implies something's going on, unless you ask a lot, in which case it can take up a lot of time. Rolling once for the party is a problem as per rawma's observation.
I ended up getting players to roll a bunch of results in advance written on index cards (one result per character on each card). When I want a roll (or just as a bluff) I get someone to pick a card and I have a roll for all characters (or a particular character I need one for), rolled in advance by that player. It's worked well in practice, and I find I generally use it several times in a session. You could do this in any game.
A second issue is that Perception is an odd skill for characters to train in. I've given it as something you get a bonus in as a result of taking other skills. That is, you don't train to increase perception - you train to improve your Scouting or Ranger ability - but whichever you do also helps your perception. This means that if it gets trumped by investigative roleplay it doesn't matter as no-one actually spent any points in it.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;935486Fantastic scenes, BTW. But thew thing that makes the threat credible - or not, since the threat doesn't seem to work exactly as intended - is that he can back it up with power. Otherwise, it would be deception.
Guess that is the gist of my post - intimidation is just an specific form of deception when practiced against the strong, and just common sense when used against the weak.
Also, which stat should you use for intimidation? Charisma? But it seems like the more menacing types are the less likable ones. Strength? That is really silly - only the very stupid will tremble in front of a Fighter while laughing at a fireball.
Anthony Hopkins is a great example - he doesn't seem like a likable character at all, just someone smart and driven.
That's why I either like
1. A system like Mythras, where stats might determine a starting advantage, but overall Skill is really what is important.
2. A pool system where you might roll a stat die and skill die, so which stat gets used can change based on how you are using it.
3. A system where stats are just a mod tacked on to the skill roll, which gives you similar flexibility to 2.
Quote from: CRKrueger;939182. A pool system where you might roll a stat die and skill die, so which stat gets used can change based on how you are using it.
3. A system where stats are just a mod tacked on to the skill roll
Yeah, I'm decoupling skills from traits in my game for exactly this kind of flexibility.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;939159A second issue is that Perception is an odd skill for characters to train in. I've given it as something you get a bonus in as a result of taking other skills. That is, you don't train to increase perception - you train to improve your Scouting or Ranger ability - but whichever you do also helps your perception. This means that if it gets trumped by investigative roleplay it doesn't matter as no-one actually spent any points in it.
As I recall, EABA takes basically that approach. Perception is a base stat and can be rolled with any skill, depending on what you're trying to perceive. Looking for hidden doors in a dungeon? Roll Perception+Stoneworking. Looking for a concealed pistol? Roll Perception+Firearms. Looking for wild game? Perception+Hunting. Etc.
Quote from: nDervish;939265As I recall, EABA takes basically that approach. Perception is a base stat and can be rolled with any skill, depending on what you're trying to perceive. Looking for hidden doors in a dungeon? Roll Perception+Stoneworking. Looking for a concealed pistol? Roll Perception+Firearms. Looking for wild game? Perception+Hunting. Etc.
That's an attractive variant approach, but there are issues which stop me using it. Taking your examples, would being a sharp shooter help you spot a concealed pistol? When looking for hidden doors are there multiple skills that could apply, or just one? Presumably many, so what if the character is good at two do they get a better bonus? (Presumably looking for wild game is actually just Hunting, not Perception).
And I'm the one accused of not having an imagination. And yet, none of the skills mentioned here have ever been a problem for me.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;939305Taking your examples, would being a sharp shooter help you spot a concealed pistol?
While the other examples were my own inventions, I'm pretty sure I saw that one in the actual rules. The logic would be that familiarity with firearms makes you more able to recognize the shape of one underneath clothing, as well as giving you a better sense of where and how they could be hidden, so you know where to look.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;939305When looking for hidden doors are there multiple skills that could apply, or just one? Presumably many, so what if the character is good at two do they get a better bonus?
Just pick the best one. It's always one stat plus one skill. (Actually, given how complete EABA is, there probably is a rule for a high level in one skill providing a bonus to a different skill for tasks where both apply, but I don't remember such a rule offhand.)
Quote from: JoeNuttall;939305(Presumably looking for wild game is actually just Hunting, not Perception).
Nope, never "just Hunting" because that's a skill by itself, with no stat added. But which stat to use depends on what you're doing with the skill - Perception+Hunting to spot game, Intelligence+Hunting to set a trap to catch it, Dexterity+Hunting to skin and field dress it, Charisma+Hunting to tell a convincing and entertaining story about "the one that got away", etc.
Quote from: nDervish;939409While the other examples were my own inventions, I'm pretty sure I saw that one in the actual rules. The logic would be that familiarity with firearms makes you more able to recognize the shape of one underneath clothing, as well as giving you a better sense of where and how they could be hidden, so you know where to look.
Guys, that's the difference between narrow skills, like in GURPS, and broad skills, as in Feng Shui:).
In GURPS, "pistol" skill is for shooting it, hiding and discovering items are two different skills, unless it's the infamously expensive Wildcard Skill.
In FS, your pistol skill is knowledge about using guns, so you know how to hide them, you know where you'd hide them and know to look there during a search, and you also know people that like and/or sell guns;).
Ah, I hadn't realised that's what you meant. It's the idea that the attribute to go with the skill varies with the application, which is quite a nice idea, but it might be too much complexity (for me).
So the difference between that and mine is that perception is an attribute that can be applied to skills, whereas I've got Perception as a general skill derived from other skills.
Quote from: AsenRG;939499Guys, that's the difference between narrow skills, like in GURPS, and broad skills, as in Feng Shui:).
"Pistol" is obviously a narrow skill (a broad skill would be "shooting"). If it was e.g. "hitman" as a skill then obviously that would include spotting a hidden gun. The oddity is when "Pistol" means you can spot a hidden pistol, but not a hidden knife. But there's nothing to stop someone arguing that and the Ref giving them the bonus I suppose.
Actually, "pistols" might well include hiding and discovering pistols, but not, say, knives, and contacts with pistol collectors, and fast draw, so it could be a broad skill. GURPS uses it as a narrow skill, but that's because GURPS just workslike this, not because of the skill's name:)!
And indeed knives tend to be hidden in different places than pistols, so that part makes sense to me;).
I'm far from convinced about the "can spot hidden pistols every time but cannot spot a hidden knife to save your life".
If skill in pistols gives you bonus on anything pistol related, would learning French give you a bonus on anything French? Would it allow you a bonus on catching a French Book someone throws at you?
Quote from: JoeNuttall;939938I'm far from convinced about the "can spot hidden pistols every time but cannot spot a hidden knife to save your life".
If skill in pistols gives you bonus on anything pistol related, would learning French give you a bonus on anything French? Would it allow you a bonus on catching a French Book someone throws at you?
Never said "can't help you", did I? I said "it doesn't help you
all that much". You still have your perception to rely on, but the shapes you're used to look for and the slight changes in the way of movement when someone is packing heat are different when someone's packing steel. I mean, list the places you can stuff a blade and the places you can hide an iron, and compare...
Of course, you might as well make an argument that you could use your Pistollero skill to scan for knives, but you'd just get a penalty. The GM might well accept it. Games with broad skills allow for more negotiation.
Yes, narrow skills are more precise, but take up more space, while broad skills are more handwavy. Why is that even controversial? Just pick a game that suits your preferences!
And French Language wouldn't be a skill in a system with broad skills - at most, it would be on a list of "languages you talk". "Francophone education" might be...and having that one IRL myself, I can tell you that yes, you're likely to know surprising trivia about the culture, cuisine and history of France. Surprising to anyone but a French native, that is.
Or it might be just called "Linguist", and you'd know not just French in the deal.
The French thing was a joke ;-) French would likely be a broad skill, but it would be along the lines of french language AND culture.
The pistol comments aren't criticisisms of broad skills - I use broad skills - I'm just not convinced by that particular way of partitioning skills. But that doesn't mean it can't work for everyone else!
Quote from: JoeNuttall;939938I'm far from convinced about the "can spot hidden pistols every time but cannot spot a hidden knife to save your life".
If skill in pistols gives you bonus on anything pistol related, would learning French give you a bonus on anything French? Would it allow you a bonus on catching a French Book someone throws at you?
Detecting hidden/concealed weapon on a person: Deception skill
Spotting items in cubby holes: Perception skill
Catching a book: Athletic skill
Reading it: Language skill