Creating a skills system from the ground up

[tedcahill2]

I'm trying to create a custom skill system for a game, and I would love some feedback.

The skill in question is Deception. Deception covers acts such as:

Fast talk: you can talk your way out of or through a situation but your deception is quickly realized
Impersonate: convincingly act like someone else, especially effective when combined with a disguise

Now I really feel like this skill should also cover trying to con someone, and I'm trying to figure out how that differs from fast talk mechanically.

For fast talk it would be an opposed roll against whoever your trying to fast talk, and it would take 1 min for each point over their modified roll before they realize you swindled them. The acts of conning someone feels different than that, like you'd be lying, but you'd be really convincing them that what you're saying it the truth. Sort of like diplomacy, but it's all lies.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Players have attribute and skill ratings ranging in value from 1 to 10 (attributes max at 6 for humans and higher or lower for non-humans). Each skill has an associated attribute, and the sum of the attribute and skill equal the players total dice pool for rolls. Dice pools are made up of d6's with any die showing a result of 5 or 6 being counted as a success. In an effort to avoid rolling 20+d6's the maximum number of d6's you will ever roll is 10, for every 4 points over 10 in your dice pool you gain an automatic success to your roll. In other words, once you have at least a 10 in your dice pool for a given skill you reach a point of diminishing returns.

Some skill tests are successful if a certain number of successes are rolled, while others are opposed my an opposing skill roll.

Most skills cover a broad range of related applications, for example the athletics skills covers climbing, jumping, and running, these sub-skills are referred to as skill focuses. The athletics skill can only be trained up to level 4, at that point you have effectively learned all you can about the general application of athletics. To further your athletic training you need to focus on one of the sub-skills. Skill focuses can be trained up to level 6, for a total dice pool of 10 derived from a single skill. I chose this approach because it never made any sense to me that someone could be an amazing climber, but a terrible jumper. The athleticism required for one effects the others, but excelling in one area requires additional focued training.

The following is a work in progress:
Skill (skill focuses)
Acrobatics (balance, escape artist, tumble)
Athletics (climb, jump, run)
Animal Handling (empathy, ride, train)
Persuasion (diplomacy, gather information, negotiate, intimidate)
Deception (fast talk, impersonate, mislead)
Unarmed Combat (block, brawl, martial arts)
Bladed Weapons (daggers, full blades, swords, parry)
Hafted Weapons (axes, flails, maces, parry)
Pole Weapons (spears, staves, pole arms, parry)
Firearms (blunderbuss, musket, pistol)
Archery (bows, crossbows)
Stealth (hide, move silently)
Survival (camouflage, hunt, track)
Sabotage (disable device, open lock)
Sleight of Hand (legerdemain, pick pocket, pilfer)

[JoeJ]

What do you intend the role of skills in the game to be? Are skills the primary way that characters interact with the universe, or are you making them more as a supplement to something else, such as class abilities?

Also, roughly how many skills do you want there to be in the game, and about how many of those will characters typically have?

[Thrawn4]

If you use the System like this, even a master will only be able to convince a fool for a few minutes.
Besides that i'm not sure what it is that you ask.

[Florian]

This is like someone planning to build a car and wants to have input on the steering wheel without talking about the blueprint of the actual car, so basically useless.

[tedcahill2]

What do you intend the role of skills in the game to be? Are skills the primary way that characters interact with the universe, or are you making them more as a supplement to something else, such as class abilities?

Also, roughly how many skills do you want there to be in the game, and about how many of those will characters typically have?
Yes, this is a classless system I'm working on (think Shadowrun) everything is based on skills and abilities that can be bought (like buying feats).



If you use the System like this, even a master will only be able to convince a fool for a few minutes.
Besides that i'm not sure what it is that you ask.
For the fast talk application that's correct. Using fast talk isn't convincing someone of a lie, it's more like flashing your library card to a police officer and convincing him it's a press pass as you walk into a crime scene. If you succeed you are able to get in, but the cop will eventually realize the deception.


This is like someone planning to build a car and wants to have input on the steering wheel without talking about the blueprint of the actual car, so basically useless.
Sorry if I'm not asking the right question, I didn't think anyone would read a multi-page post on the background of skills in my game.

[supercooldragn]

Mislead. Convince a subject that something is true which is false. Success chance modified by subjects knowledge, believability of "fact" to be believed, evidence that can be given in its favor, and possibly other circumstantial modifiers generally in favor of subject unless actively fixed by misleader.

Requires time and a subject willing to listen. Time required dependant on magnitude of lie and skill of misleader.
Requires persuasion check or similar to get attempt to mislead

On a success subject will believe the fact to be true.
On a large success subject will initially resist correction.
On a great success subject will need hard evidence to disbelieve "fact".

[Florian]

Sorry if I'm not asking the right question, I didn't think anyone would read a multi-page post on the background of skills in my game.

When we´re talking about design, the "engineering part", that doesn't really matter.

[jayem]

For the fast talk application that's correct. Using fast talk isn't convincing someone of a lie, it's more like flashing your library card to a police officer and convincing him it's a press pass as you walk into a crime scene. If you succeed you are able to get in, but the cop will eventually realize the deception.
Sorry if I'm not asking the right question, I didn't think anyone would read a multi-page post on the background of skills in my game.

You could put the game details in a spoiler, that way you can go into as much detail as neccessary

Given fast talk is impulsive but non-sustainable, perhaps a 'con' could be the opposite. You have to invest time (during which time someone could walk in) and even then you might fail.

[Corneel]

Sorry if I'm not asking the right question, I didn't think anyone would read a multi-page post on the background of skills in my game.
I think you underestimate the kinky stuff some people are into in this forum.

[tedcahill2]

I think you underestimate the kinky stuff some people are into in this forum.

Wish granted. I added a pretty broad overview of where I'm at with the skills system and skills. There are many skills I have not yet got down on paper.

[Florian]

Hm...

Do you plan to work with antagonistic skills, like attack skill vs. defense skill like dodge/parry?

Ok, let´s have a talk about how similar systems work and what could be "salvaged" for your system.

SR5 does something right by using skill groups in addition to individual skills. This is something you should do, too, as a starting point, creating the general rules before you go deeper into the individual skills and generate the exception to the general. Ie. start with how "social attack" is resolved vs. "social defense" (or weapon/spell attack vs. dodge/resist skill), then go deeper into how a "con" skill will work based on that core mechanic.

L5R 4th uses a similar "skill overflow" mechanic, but also works with "raises", so you can voluntarily call for a harder roll (needing more hits) to gain additional effects. Keep that mechanic in mind before starting with something like "limit athletics to 4 for verisimilitude reasons".

Splittermond handles overspecialization and talent acquisition by introducing tiers, tied to total XP spent. Skills are capped at 6, 9 and 12 for each tier. Hitting the tier cap for each tier will also unlock the corresponding talent choices for that particular skill or skill group. Talent acquisition is also capped in this way, meaning only max 3 talents per skill.

[Lord Torath]

Can you use Deception skills to convince someone of something that is true?

[tedcahill2]

Do you plan to work with antagonistic skills, like attack skill vs. defense skill like dodge/parry?
Yes, I started by reading Shadowrun 5E as a starting point for the system. As such I have kept much of the combat system. A weapon skill roll is opposed by a defense roll, or with the expenditure of action points a player may dodge, parry, or block the attack. Each success in excess of the defense roll increases the damage dealt with the attack. Damage is then resolved with an armor and toughness roll to see how much of the damage can be mitigated.


SR5 does something right by using skill groups in addition to individual skills. This is something you should do, too, as a starting point...
Shadowrun, and many other systems, also use skill groups. I'm not sure of the SR5 iteration of it, but for most systems a skill group allows you to train multiple related skills cheaper than training each skill individually. When developing my skills that is also where I started, but as I got deeper into the skills I started liking it less and less. While searching for a favorable solution I found the Serenity RPG skill rules, which was close to perfect to what I imagined. So what I adopted was training base skills up to a certain point, the idea is that the base skills set the foundation for learning more focused skills thereafter. Weapons for example, the Bladed Weapons skill, which can be trained to rank 4, covers the use of all swords, and the 4 ranks represent the basic training one would undergo when learning to sword fight. The sub-skills, small blades, large blades, full blades, can be trained up to an additional 8 ranks. The idea here is that it's ludicrous that someone with 10 ranks in small blades would be inept at using large blades or full blades. Many of the techniques would be the same. So by having foundation skill ranks with focused skill ranks added after I think I'm able to represent that nicely.


L5R 4th uses a similar "skill overflow" mechanic, but also works with "raises", so you can voluntarily call for a harder roll (needing more hits) to gain additional effects. Keep that mechanic in mind before starting with something like "limit athletics to 4 for verisimilitude reasons". I'm not sure what you're going for here. Athletics is limited to 4 ranks, but you can continue to rank up athletics sub-skills an additional 8 ranks. This is to represent that as you begin to train in athletics you will see an overall improvement in many areas of athletics, however, the further you push you training the more specialized it needs to be. It's logical that an excellent running would also be a decent climber and jumper, their overall athleticism makes them good at all athletic endeavors, but after that (rank 4) if they want to become a better runner, they need to start learning and training in ways that will really only aid in their running.


Splittermond handles overspecialization and talent acquisition by introducing tiers, tied to total XP spent. Skills are capped at 6, 9 and 12 for each tier. Hitting the tier cap for each tier will also unlock the corresponding talent choices for that particular skill or skill group. Talent acquisition is also capped in this way, meaning only max 3 talents per skill.
This is a really interesting idea to me as I did plan on using purchasable abilities to replace class features, as this system will have no classes. The abilities you can purchase would often have had skill rank or attribute requirements, but getting them for free when reaching certain skill tiers is an equally interesting idea.

[OldTrees1]

Players have attribute and skill ratings ranging in value from 1 to 10 (attributes max at 6 for humans and higher or lower for non-humans). The sum of the attribute and skill equal the players total dice pool for rolls. In an effort to avoid rolling 20+d6's the maximum number of d6's you will ever roll is 10, for every 4 points over 10 in your dice pool you gain an automatic success to your roll.

Sounds like skill+attribute can range from 2 to 20 and the dice pool is 10+2 for 18-20 so the real max is 18 rather than 20. Is this intended?

Sounds like human skill+attribute can range from 2 to 16 and the dice pool is 10+1 for 14-16 so the real human max is 14 rather than 16. Is this intended?

[tedcahill2]

Sounds like skill+attribute can range from 2 to 20 and the dice pool is 10+2 for 18-20 so the real max is 18 rather than 20. Is this intended?

Sounds like human skill+attribute can range from 2 to 16 and the dice pool is 10+1 for 14-16 so the real human max is 14 rather than 16. Is this intended?

I hadn't really considered it in the way you wrote it, so not I wouldn't say it's intentional. There are various gear and magics that give additional bonuses to dice pools though, so it isn't to say there would be no benefit to maximizing your strength and athletics for example. On it's own the 19th and 20th point in the stat/skill don't add anything to your chance of success, but it does mean that an item or spell that provides a bonus will get you to that next +1 success. Additionally, my intention is to avoid tallying up dozens of little bonuses by using a 5E like advantage disadvantage system to add between -2 and +2 to a dice pool would also allow you to be potentially unaffected by small disadvantages or get to that next +1 with an advantage.

I have not thought of or found a better solution to a dice pool system where you don't roll dozens of dice, but if you have any thoughts on it I'm all ears (eyes?).

I think I may have been getting some of number numbers wrong as I typed this out over multiple posts. Nothing is totally set in stone yet either and I keep flip flopping around on what the attribute and skill maximums should be.

For attributes I keep going back and forth between having human attributes ranging from 1 to 5 and stronger player races going from 1 to 8, or using a slightly higher scale with humans at 1 to 6 and stronger races from 1 to 10. These could of course be modified in game with magic and gear, but I want to keep bonuses pretty limited to minor (+1) and major (+2) effects.

I have likewise been going back and forth between skills providing up to 8 to 12 ranks. The reason I can't make up my mind is because even though I prefer the math behind dice pool mechanics I am strongly averse to having players rolling dozens of d6's every time they use a skill. So I'm trying to find a good balance between keeping dice pools manageable, and keeping the ceiling high enough that players won't reach the top after a few sessions.

That's up of the reasons to implement the rule that, no matter the size of your dice pool you only ever roll 10d6 for a single roll. 10d6 leaves plenty of room for chance, and investment in a skill beyond that earns automatic successes at a rate of 1 per 4 points over 10.

[tedcahill2]

Can you use Deception skills to convince someone of something that is true?
Yes, midlead, a sub-skill of deception, is sort of like the counterpart of diplomacy. It requires a lengthier conversation, and the end result is to convince someone of a lie.

[LibraryOgre]

Given the skills list, my inclination would be that Deception would be opposed by Deception; if you had a standard-style Notice/Perception skill, that would be a good candidate, but opposing Deception with Deception leads you into the "Don't kid a kidder" territory... someone good at lying and misdirecting people will be likewise good at knowing when someone is lying.

[OldTrees1]

I hadn't really considered it in the way you wrote it, so not I wouldn't say it's intentional. There are various gear and magics that give additional bonuses to dice pools though, so it isn't to say there would be no benefit to maximizing your strength and athletics for example. On it's own the 19th and 20th point in the stat/skill don't add anything to your chance of success, but it does mean that an item or spell that provides a bonus will get you to that next +1 success. Additionally, my intention is to avoid tallying up dozens of little bonuses by using a 5E like advantage disadvantage system to add between -2 and +2 to a dice pool would also allow you to be potentially unaffected by small disadvantages or get to that next +1 with an advantage.

I have not thought of or found a better solution to a dice pool system where you don't roll dozens of dice, but if you have any thoughts on it I'm all ears (eyes?).

Ah, those other misc modifiers alleviate the question.

[Lord Torath]

Yes, midlead, a sub-skill of deception, is sort of like the counterpart of diplomacy. It requires a lengthier conversation, and the end result is to convince someone of a lie.But can you use Mislead to convince someone of something that is actually true? Say, for example, you know that there is a horde of evil humanoids on the other side of the ridge, and you need to convince the commander of the local garrison that she needs to sound the alarm. Using mislead, you can convince her of something that's false. Could you also use it to convince her of something that's true? Or would you have to convince her it's an army of, say, angry separatist muskrats (a lie) in order to get her to close the gate and call up the reserves against a real threat?

[tedcahill2]

But can you use Mislead to convince someone of something that is actually true? Say, for example, you know that there is a horde of evil humanoids on the other side of the ridge, and you need to convince the commander of the local garrison that she needs to sound the alarm. Using mislead, you can convince her of something that's false. Could you also use it to convince her of something that's true? Or would you have to convince her it's an army of, say, angry separatist muskrats (a lie) in order to get her to close the gate and call up the reserves against a real threat?

Short answer, I don't know yet. I didn't want to put a mechanic on "you believe my lie" and in retrospect calling the subskill mislead may not be quite right.

The function of diplomacy is to improve your standing with the person in question. If they are unfriendly toward you then a diplomacy roll may improve their attitude to friendly. However, beyond them having their attitude generally improved their is no mechanical benefit and the DM should be free to play out the situation however they feel their NPC should/would given their new improved attitude.

As a counterpart to this skill function I thought deception should have a similar subskill. One that would similarly improve the NPCs attitude toward you, but through deception. I'm not 100% sure what that would look like but in my head the goal is to have a skill that could be used to con someone. Again, I don't want a skill that simply say, you win you conned them, but one that improved their attitude to a point that the DM would/should play it out as though you've convinced them of whatever your con was to the limits that the NPC would be fooled.

Your example is an interesting one and I'm not sure how to treat it, but I definitely see your points.

[Florian]

@tedcahill2:

Ok, I assume you don't know the L5R mechanics. While I get where you want to go with the Base Skill + Advanced Skill mechanics, I was trying to point out the difference between Base Actions vs. Complex Action, something which actually makes the main appeal of the RnK system.

Let´s stick to social skills for an example: Using the Courtier/Gossip skill to badmouth a rival is a Base Action with a TN of 10. If I want the topic to be believable, be hidden as the source of gossip and engineer it in a way that another rival seems to be the source, this will raise the TN by 5, 10 and 15 for a combined TN of 40 for this Complex Action.

This could quite well transfer to your system idea when it comes to "minimum hits required". I think you can see how that concept transfers over to your "Deception" skill.

The system works similarly when it comes to combat skills and "combat maneuvers".

So, that's the question at which point you want to model verisimilitude, by the skill ranks or by the execution of the skill check?

[tedcahill2]

@tedcahill2:

Ok, I assume you don't know the L5R mechanics. While I get where you want to go with the Base Skill + Advanced Skill mechanics, I was trying to point out the difference between Base Actions vs. Complex Action, something which actually makes the main appeal of the RnK system.

Let´s stick to social skills for an example: Using the Courtier/Gossip skill to badmouth a rival is a Base Action with a TN of 10. If I want the topic to be believable, be hidden as the source of gossip and engineer it in a way that another rival seems to be the source, this will raise the TN by 5, 10 and 15 for a combined TN of 40 for this Complex Action.

This could quite well transfer to your system idea when it comes to "minimum hits required". I think you can see how that concept transfers over to your "Deception" skill.

The system works similarly when it comes to combat skills and "combat maneuvers".

So, that's the question at which point you want to model verisimilitude, by the skill ranks or by the execution of the skill check?
I haven't read up on L5R. That'll be tonights reading. Thanks!

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Fast talk: you can talk your way out of or through a situation but your deception is quickly realized

Now I really feel like this skill should also cover trying to con someone, and I'm trying to figure out how that differs from fast talk mechanically.

For fast talk it would be an opposed roll against whoever your trying to fast talk, and it would take 1 min for each point over their modified roll before they realize you swindled them. The acts of conning someone feels different than that, like you'd be lying, but you'd be really convincing them that what you're saying it the truth. Sort of like diplomacy, but it's all lies.


If you use the System like this, even a master will only be able to convince a fool for a few minutes.


For the fast talk application that's correct. Using fast talk isn't convincing someone of a lie, it's more like flashing your library card to a police officer and convincing him it's a press pass as you walk into a crime scene. If you succeed you are able to get in, but the cop will eventually realize the deception.

Given what Fast Talk is supposed to cover, I don't think that Fast Talk should have a time limit. If you're a busy cop checking peoples' IDs and someone flashes you a library card, you're probably not going to believe him for 10 minutes and then suddenly go "Hey, wait, that person I let in 10 minutes ago had a bad ID!", you're probably going to let him in and then forget about it pretty much immediately because you have something else to do afterward and there's no reason to second-guess yourself about the ID being legitimate.

Unless, that is, something brings it to your attention again--you get a second look at the impersonator and realize they aren't dressed like a normal reporter, another cop comes up and ask you about whether you let in that dodgy guy standing by the corpse, and so on.

So the difference between Fast Talk and Con shouldn't be that Fast Talk has an expiration time and Con doesn't, it should be that Fast Talk is quick and improvised but doesn't stand up to scrutiny (requires a distracted target, only works against one person once, falls apart if someone double-checks it, etc.), whereas Con is slow and requires more preparation but does stand up to scrutiny (works on suspicious targets, can work on one or more people, stands up to repeated exposure, holds up if someone investigates it further, etc.).


To use the crime scene example, Joe Criminal wants to get into a crime scene because his buddy Bob the Assassin killed someone and Joe wants to see if there's any evidence in the scene that would link Bob (and therefore possibly Joe) to the crime. He could go about it one of two ways: he could Fast Talk his way into the area ("Yep, here's my press pass!" flashes library card), then Fast Talk his way to the body alongside the other investigators ("Yeah, CNN sent me and the guy over there let me in, I'm just going to be taking notes over here, you don't mind, do you?"), and would have to Fast Talk anyone else who comes over to ask him what he's doing there. If the original cop asks to see his ID again, or the second set of cops want to double-check his ID, or another group of cops comes up wondering why they let in a civilian, or any of those Fast Talk checks fail, he's screwed--and he'd probably have to make more checks periodically, because he wouldn't be acting like a normal journalist so someone might get suspicious.

Or...he could set up a Con. He'd buy or make a reporter-looking uniform, mock up a forged press pass, have someone waiting by the phone to pretend to be his manager if someone wants to call his boss, and so on. He could then stroll up to the first cop, casually chat with him as the cop inspects the ID ("Yeah, such a shame, he died too young, hope you catch the bastard who did it") and wander over to the crime scene to start looking around and be happy to prove his identity to the other cops there ("Ugh, I hate crime scenes, I didn't want to be on this story, you guys are very brave"), and if anyone questions him he can play along ("Look, man, I don't know why you didn't get notified. Here's my boss's card, you call him if you want to, but I'm on the clock"). As long as his Con is good enough, people can keep checking his ID and questioning him and it'll check out. Only if they call up CNN or call in a veteran detective (= are able to see through the Con due to conflicting evidence improving their modifiers or by getting someone with a better modifier) will he be screwed.

Fast Talk is much more dangerous in this case, but he could wander by the crime scene and make a split-second decision to do it as long as he is dressed reasonably well and has a vaguely ID-looking card on him, and hopefully get in and out before anyone sees through it. Con is much more safe, but if he stumbled upon the crime scene he couldn't work a Con immediately, he'd have to rush home, grab some more materials, make a few calls, and so on, and by the time he does that the crime scene might be sealed off or the evidence might be taken away.