The Maximal Skill Problem

[Lord Raziere]

I think I've noticed something in skill-based rpgs. Specifically, they might claim to be more flexible about the character creation process, but all the ones I have tried so far (Exalted, Shadowrun) seem to default to a class-like arrangement. you often end up with a bunch of hyper-specialized characters anyways despite their talk of having any skill you want and being open-ended.

The result is that skill-based rpgs seem to be in many ways, just unbuilt classes, with far more potential to choose bad choices that screw over the character, one problem I've noticed in particular is the maximal skill problem, in that you often have to get your skill up to maximum competency just for it to be effective at all. there is no room for generalists, sure you can make one but these are generally considered useless.

In many ways, this is oddly more limiting than classes. with classes at least you know your limitations and what you are playing, the limitations and capabilities are built right in and the class is more a base to build upon from there, a solid foundation and character concept. with skill-based ones, you don't know what you are getting. without the right combination of skills, it might not work. you can at least count upon the fact that a class is clear whether its bad or good right from the get-go, but with skills its not clear because its all spread out and is like a bunch of blocks: you don't know if the structure you put together will work until you are finished. which means you tend to stick to structures you know. the structures people know of course, are classes.

Sure its more customizable, but that just means there is more room to make bad choices and holes to fall into. I say this as someone who likes skill-based systems in theory, but find myself disappointed in how they work practically.

However, there are some systems that are better- Eclipse Phases package system makes sure the character isn't hyper-specialized, even if its technically just picking a few sub-classes and combining them together. FATE with all its narrative flexibility allows you a lot of leeway in how you go about using the skills you have, but I count FATE less as a skill rpg and more as a narrative one. the true power is the narrative, not the skills used to uphold it.

I don't know, I guess this is just a realization I've had and just wanted to share it. I guess what I'd want, going forward from this is to somehow find a way to make a skill-based system live up to its ideal that you can take any skill you want and have a viable character concept and not just fall back into classes-but-without-the-classes. Don't know if this problem is in other skill-based rpgs so I don't know, my experience might be biased.

[nedz]

This is just the principle of specialisation.

A group of specialist characters, who between them cover all the bases, will be more effective than a group of generalists.

This is as true in real life as it is in most game systems. The type of system is irrelevant.

[Wulfram]

I think specialisation is a good thing in a party based game.

[Arcane_Snowman]

It's an interesting theory, although I can't say I agree with it.

Hyper-specialization is a matter of people generally being interested in being as good as possible at what they do, you see this in class systems as well, but most of the numbers are already given to them so there's less modification possible. With a class-less system the balance ends up a lot more dependent on the GM than with a class system, and as such it can more easily be skewed because it's a lot easier for the GM to make hyper-specialization necessary to succeed.

It's true that it's easier to be led astray by a point buy system than a class system as there are more options, but I also think that a lot of the time there's a severe disconnect between the benchmarks of the game, compared to what is possible to acquire for a starting character. More often than not, people end up making what could be equated to TO characters, the Face is a Diplomancer, the Warrior an Ubercharger etc.

With the two first examples you've given, I find that Exalted is a horrible mess system-wise and the attempts at rectification haven't really impressed me.

Shadowrun is a pretty big offender regarding my point, it's fairly easy to get caught up trying to give your character a ridiculously high bonus to your task of choice, because it doesn't give a great feel of what is good enough. And this can be really messed with if the GM isn't paying attention to benchmarks.

I cannot speak of Eclipse Phase, but I think discounting FATE seems a bit arbitrary, the skills have a pretty huge impact on the character's capabilities, even if the Aspects allow for narrative-based bonuses and you get rewards for out of the box application of them.

For examples of some pretty good class-less systems, I'd recommend Ars Magica and Legend of the Five Rings, the latter being somewhat more of a middle-ground between the two things, as you do have a "class" but are free to purchase abilities, skills etc. with next to no restrictions.

[Rhynn]

It's a matter of degrees. Shadowrun 4E happens to give you less resources to work with, relative to the number of options, than any other edition; in Shadowrun 5E, the highest or second-highest skill priority let you max out your primary skill and then splurge on secondaries (e.g. you can have 10/15 skills at 5, with 6 the maximum to start with). Obviously, if you spend your high priorities on something else (metahumanity, magic), you'll have less for skills. On the other hand, 5E removed some of the limits 4E imposed (limiting you to 4 in skill groups, etc.).

In GURPS, in a 100-150 point campaign, you're pretty much bound to have enough points to get decent levels in a wide variety of skills, while still specializing in one thing (probably 1-3 skills, 1 attribute, maybe a few supporting advantages) over others.

In Aces & Eights, you can't even specialize in combat (except by taking some advantages, which doesn't count for nearly as much as gunfighting experience during play will), and buying skills gets more and more expensive; what you're good at is largely determined by your ability score rolls (although you can buy up the ones you like a little).

RuneQuest since Mongoose took over (so editions 4th through 6th) has limits on how much you can spend on one skill at character creation, so you are forced to generalize to some degree. Buying multiple combat skills (at least beyond two) is pretty much a waste.

Fading Suns does something similar to Eclipse Phase: you create your character by choosing packages for the stages of your life, which can be focused towards a particular thing (combat, social, etc.) but will always get you some "incidental" skills, giving you a broader skill base.


However, in the end, "specialists are better at their specialty than generalists" is a logical statement (as in "X = X"). It's the definition of the words. You're not really going to get away from it.

[Grinner]

Yes, this is a common problem in game design. The question really is "How do you know what to set Difficulty Classes to?" or "How does the game deal with optimization?". When you set DCs so that a generalist could make it, a ridiculously optimized character, exploiting every rule possible, will breeze past them. If you then raise them to counter this, that will leave the generalist out of commission.

This solution is to avoid such mechanics altogether, but they're so deeply ingrained into tabletop gaming that people have difficulty adapting to anything else.

Interestingly, I've seen two games that mechanically reward balanced characters: Sufficiently Advanced and A Wanderer's Romance.

[Rhynn]

This solution is to avoid such mechanics altogether, but they're so deeply ingrained into tabletop gaming that people have difficulty adapting to anything else.

Alternatively, you can limit specialization. A RQ6 character can't really specialize in any one skill beyond +50% from the starting value (or whatever it ends up at).

Shadowrun 5E uses Inherent Limits to limit your successes, and generally has cut down on dice pool bonuses (with more Limit increases), making boosting your dice pools both harder and less useful. The Inherent Limits also reward balanced attributes to a degree: they're figured by averaging attributes (although in each case, one attribute weighs double).

One way to reward generalization in play is a lot of individual challenges. In cyberpunk games, like Cyberpunk 2020 or Shadowrun, I always try to spread my characters' skills out so they have a lot of basic competency (combat, movement, social, driving, first aid, computers), because when I run such games, I regularly throw the PCs out of their comfort zones, split the party, etc. You can't just go "oh, we have a guy who does first aid" or "we have a guy who knows how to drive," and not just because odds are decent that guy's going to get shot at some point...

Interestingly, I've seen two games that mechanically reward balanced characters: Sufficiently Advanced and A Wanderer's Romance.

Can you elaborate on how they do it?

[Grinner]

Can you elaborate on how they do it?

I can do my best.

A Wanderer's Romance literally has a Balance trait. When you first roll up a character, points are assigned to one of the character's four main traits: Earth, Fire, Water, and Air. When you make any roll, it will rely upon two of these traits. The Balance trait is equal to the highest number of elemental traits with the same rating. For example, having 3 traits rated at two each would give you Balance 3, while 2 traits rated at three each would give you Balance 2.

Balance itself is used primarily to determine initiative, but it also factors into a number of combat techniques.

Unfortunately, the game does have its share of observable flaws. For instance, if the GM lets you pick your traits (as opposed to rolling for them) and you dump all of your points into Fire, you'll end up with Balance 3 for having three traits rated at zero.



Sufficiently Advanced is a sci-fi game about the distant future. The problem with games about the distant future is that games about the distant future have distant future technology, and distant future technology is far superior to previous eras' technology. As such, high tech characters will tend to outclass low tech characters.

Not here.

Since immediate victory by the virtue of superior firepower would work at cross purposes with the game, the game has two different sets of mechanics. The first is a set of traits which grant the character simple competence in the form of training and technology. The second is a set of traits which allow the players certain narrative powers at cost of inflicting dramatic twists of fate upon themselves. Then there's the Import score, which determines how efficient their narrative powers are.

[Anxe]

You seem to be focused primarily on the statistics side of the game. Will my character be useful in enough situations or not? I've always thought that skill based games were more about role-playing than roll-playing. You have an idea of what your character has done in the past and then you can exactly create that. As for feeling useful in game, you just have to work to create situations that match your character's skill set.

Example: Maybe the ex-baker's skill set won't be useful in a combat situation, but it'll be useful when the party has to pose as a catering company to get close to their assassination target.

[jedipotter]

one problem I've noticed in particular is the maximal skill problem, in that you often have to get your skill up to maximum competency just for it to be effective at all. there is no room for generalists, sure you can make one but these are generally considered useless.

I always have a problem with players that think this way: I must maximize my skills to ''to effective'' and ''have fun''. It's another way of saying ''I must auto do all skill checks'', and it sure ruins games quick. This type of play quickly has a huge plus and can make most checks. But this makes problems as the character's can do anything. ''Oh, a 20 feet flaming pit..I leap over it and knit a sweater while I do that'' or ''I sweet talk the guard to let us pass and have him put me in his will''.

So I see the problem as the Auto win player way of thinking. As if they were to fail a skill check it would end game.

[Scow2]

I always have a problem with players that think this way: I must maximize my skills to ''to effective'' and ''have fun''. It's another way of saying ''I must auto do all skill checks'', and it sure ruins games quick. This type of play quickly has a huge plus and can make most checks. But this makes problems as the character's can do anything. ''Oh, a 20 feet flaming pit..I leap over it and knit a sweater while I do that'' or ''I sweet talk the guard to let us pass and have him put me in his will''.

So I see the problem as the Auto win player way of thinking. As if they were to fail a skill check it would end game.

Well, the big problem I've seen, especially in D&D, are Scaling and Opposed DCs. The biggest offenders in D&D are Stealth, Perception, Intimidate, and, in-combat, bluff, and Pathfinder added Acrobatics to that list.

[Jay R]

You've made some important observations, but I don't agree with all your conclusions about them.

The result is that skill-based rpgs seem to be in many ways, just unbuilt classes, with far more potential to choose bad choices that screw over the character, ...

Yes, absolutely. Free choice includes the ability to do something stupid, or you're really limited to the choices that the designers wanted you to take. The solution is not to make stupid choices. Or to make them, discover the mistake, pay for it with your character's life, and learn from the experience. Either way, have fun with the game.

...one problem I've noticed in particular is the maximal skill problem, in that you often have to get your skill up to maximum competency just for it to be effective at all. there is no room for generalists, sure you can make one but these are generally considered useless.

The use for a generalist, in my experience, is to be the one person who goes on any solo piece of the mission. My 2E mage/thief is not as powerful as the party's other magician, but is ideally suited for sneaking into the enemy encampment for spying and sabotage.

But yes, a generalist is overall weaker than the rest. That's what makes those characters a bigger challenge to play, and therefore more fun.

Sure its more customizable, but that just means there is more room to make bad choices and holes to fall into. I say this as someone who likes skill-based systems in theory, but find myself disappointed in how they work practically.

The ability to make bad choices is automatically included in any system that allows you to make choices that the designers didn't plan for. Therefore it's a feature, not a bug, since it is the necessary risk that accompanies your ability to come up with something completely new.

I don't know, I guess this is just a realization I've had and just wanted to share it. I guess what I'd want, going forward from this is to somehow find a way to make a skill-based system live up to its ideal that you can take any skill you want and have a viable character concept and not just fall back into classes-but-without-the-classes. Don't know if this problem is in other skill-based rpgs so I don't know, my experience might be biased.

"a skill-based system live up to its ideal that you can take any skill you want and have a viable character concept"

It depends on what you mean. In some games, I can develop any skill I want. But I had also better develop good defense and attack skills, to make a viable character. If you mean that, then we're in agreement. But if you mean a system in which any design is equally viable, I actively do not want this. Part of the game is character design, and it should matter. It should be something I can do well or poorly.

If I design the ultimate fighter pilot for a jungle crawl game, or the perfect wilderness survivor for a game of palace politics, it's my fault, not the system's. (If I design a character without knowing what kind of background I'll be in, it's the DM's fault. I give my players a multi-page world background before character design, with specific design hints.)

And it's important to realize that the game system isn't what's in the book. It's the combination of the book and the GM. I consider it part of the GM's job to make scenarios in which the characters can do well and survive and conquer (or do poorly and fail and die). If the characters can't breathe underwater, only a poor GM would design an underwater adventure. But by the same token, if all the characters can breathe underwater, it's a poor GM who runs all their adventures in the desert.

The most flexible system I know is Hero System (Champions, Fantasy Hero, etc.) Lots of people don't like it because character design includes a fair amount of basic math. I enjoy that, but many people don't.

For your purposes, it has the huge advantage of complete flexibility to design any kind of character - the system doesn't restrict your options. But it has the complementary drawback. You have the potential to make bad choices that screw over the character - the system doesn't restrict your options.

[Slipperychicken]

I find that point-based systems are excellent when you already have a clear concept in mind (complete with strengths, weaknesses, personality, etc) and aren't so concerned about optimizing.

[valadil]

Really? I've noticed the opposite problem.

When I play a specialist in a an a la carte skill game, I usually start with my specialty up pretty high if not maxed out. It might advance by a few points, but there's very little room for upward mobility when you start at the top.

In the meantime, the generalists have time to catch up with me. They'll pick up on the things that effective and buy them up. They'll get to 90% of my score and cut into my niche.

That's whinier sound than I meant it to be. What bothers me is that my specialist doesn't get better at his specialty, while the characters who aren't specialists do get better. It seems backward.

FWIW, I've mostly observed this in GURPS.

If you haven't already checked it out, Dark Heresy is an interesting compromise between class and point buy skill systems. Simply put, your class determines how much each skill costs and when they become available. You can still buy whatever you want to represent your character, it's just the price that will vary.

[nedz]

Really? I've noticed the opposite problem.

When I play a specialist in a an a la carte skill game, I usually start with my specialty up pretty high if not maxed out. It might advance by a few points, but there's very little room for upward mobility when you start at the top.

In the meantime, the generalists have time to catch up with me. They'll pick up on the things that effective and buy them up. They'll get to 90% of my score and cut into my niche.

That's whinier sound than I meant it to be. What bothers me is that my specialist doesn't get better at his specialty, while the characters who aren't specialists do get better. It seems backward.

FWIW, I've mostly observed this in GURPS.

If you haven't already checked it out, Dark Heresy is an interesting compromise between class and point buy skill systems. Simply put, your class determines how much each skill costs and when they become available. You can still buy whatever you want to represent your character, it's just the price that will vary.

This was a feature in the old chaoism style games too. The higher your skill the harder it is to improve, consequently in a long running game everyone has high points in the skills most commonly used. You could only retain your niche if it really was niche, in which case it rarely mattered.

[RochtheCrusher]

Sure its more customizable, but that just means there is more room to make bad choices and holes to fall into. I say this as someone who likes skill-based systems in theory, but find myself disappointed in how they work practically.

Well, how much satisfaction do you feel when you buy a chair, versus buying tools and lumber and building one? Sure, the one you buy is more likely to work (or win the game), but the one you made yourself makes you feel good when it works.

Now, obviously, regardless of the system your party will want everything. Someone has to pick the lock, and someone needs to be able to lie about what the first someone is doing. These may or may not be the same person, but you want to do both things well, because it sucks to not get the lock open and get caught doing it because you have too many ranks in swimming.

Unless your thief is in Venice... hmmm...

Anyway, I mostly see this as an issue for the DM to rectify, to make choices interesting. If you have a knight who is good with a sword and shield, but he's away from his friends and needs to figure out where they went... well, is he decent (not exceptional) at gathering information? Or tracking? If not, why not? What was his plan for when he fell out of his wheelhouse? Did he have one backup skill, like lying (specialization all the way down) or did he put five points in everything he thought was useless, just so he could tap dance really badly if that ever came up?

Or, did he give all that up for an extra point of swordsmanship, which is bloody useless now that he's lost?

Of course, if your DM doesn't challenge you like this, I think he's missing an opportunity in a skill system. After all, a D&D Paladin can't train in Bluff, so it seems unfair to punish him for neglecting to... but in a skill based game? It's much easier to say, "Whadda you mean you didn't take Freefall?! I don't care that you're a hacker, the game's in space for crying out loud!"

[Lord Raziere]

ok ok, cool, all of that is good information to know, glad to know that I'm not the only who thinks this BUT.

I'm also glad that this isn't the only problem, and that there can be an opposite problem as well, all good to know.

as for Dark Heresy and other WH40k games….Eh…..I consider them a class system. thing is class and skill based systems often are not "pure" they often have both, so I mostly consider any game that has very strong class-like stuff to be a class-based one even if they have skills attached to them. (Exalted I don't count because its castes are VERY broad and open-ended in concept, and not a very linear progression of power, and can be vastly different in how they play, even in the same caste.)

and yea I sort of dislike auto-win to. its not about the destination that is victory, it is the journey towards it...

[SassyQuatch]

And here I thought that we were going to have a discussion about a Beast Wars RPG.

Disappointing.

[Ravens_cry]

Any game you can customize meaningfully is going to suffer from this to a greater and lesser degree.
'Tis the nature of the beast.
While some games might have mechanics that make this more difficult, for example making it cost more to level up a skill the higher it progresses, a specialist in their chosen field is going to be more competent in that field than a generalist. Frankly, the strikes me as only fair. In fact, I would find a game that didn't reward specialization to at least some degree to be downright unfair. I spent these points/levels/feats, shouldn't I get something out of it?

[Scow2]

And here I thought that we were going to have a discussion about a Beast Wars RPG.

Disappointing.

You're not the only one.

[Ravens_cry]

You're not the only one.

Surely there has been a Transformers RPG . . . right?
Right?

[SassyQuatch]

Surely there has been a Transformers RPG . . . right?
Right?

The license has never been signed out. There's a few fan-made games and a couple of attempts to work them in to other games with the serial numbers filed off, but never anything official.

[Ravens_cry]

The license has never been signed out. There's a few fan-made games and a couple of attempts to work them in to other games with the serial numbers filed off, but never anything official.

There was a a innovative Ghostbusters RPG, a TMNT (based on the original comic) RPG, but no Transformers RPG?
What is wrong with the world!?

[Rakaydos]

In Edge of Empire, it is pretty easy to make a dedicated specialist- just be a Droid. Given the way their character buildin rules work, only droids get the build points to really specialize heavilly in one thing- while every other race gets "free stats" that automatically diversifies them more than a droid ever could, even if they tried spending their greater number of points for it.

Which, really, just means that they're purpose built machines. A battle droid can shoot... but they've got the Intellect, Cunning, Willpower, Presence and Brawn of, well, a battle droid. Find me an organic who knows 6 million forms of communications, and I'll get on threepios case for waddling awkwardly around with a Brawn, Agility, and Willpower of 1.

And if the specialist is causing problems with encounter balance... "We dont serve your kind here, Droid."

[The Grue]

In response to those who have argued that specialization is an inherrently good thing:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I tend to apply this to RPG characters as well. For a D20 example, look no further than the Factotum.

[NichG]

The big culprit behind this is systems that assume that boiling everything down into a single roll is sufficient to make the game a rich experience. That basically has a couple strong consequences on the kind of play that materializes, and its why specialists are so important for those games:

- Any opposed check, the person who has put more into their numbers will win that contest. If winning that contest means they get to do something bad to you or your own plan fails entirely, you have to put a lot of resources into winning that one critical roll.

- Even for unopposed checks, that skill number is basically the thing that decides 'how well will the party do' in the particular situations dominated by the skill. It becomes a game of Go Fish. If there's a DC 30 door, you just want someone to have 20 ranks in Lockpicking, rather than everyone having 5.

Now, specialization is good in a lot of ways - it protects player niches and prevents people from being marginalized. But at the same time, 'I want bigger numbers' isn't very interesting game design.

My suggestion is that rather than have skills be primarily about the roll, they should primarily be about unlocking special distinctive abilities at different intervals. That way if these abilities interact with one another, there's a choice that the player must make about 'I want at least 3 ranks of this so I can get this one power, but then 5 ranks of this other thing, etc'. Thats kind of how most of the special powers work in World of Darkness games, for example, and it makes those powers a lot more interesting than the base skills.

Thats easy to do when skills are magic - you're creating new powers for magic anyhow. What's really needed is a set of powers for common skills. What distinctive thing can you do if you're 'this good' at lockpicking? Skyrim's perks are actually a decent model for this.

I tried to do this in the system for my current campaign, with 'waza' that you can get access to at every 10 ranks of a skill. For example, at 10 ranks you can learn the key patterns/combinations of things you pick; at 20 ranks you can pick locks without tools; at 30 ranks you can pick locks that aren't actually locks, such as timer mechanisms, a person's emotional walls, or a prophecy about the special characteristics of the person allowed to enter a certain area. For perception, at a certain number of ranks you can still avoid attacks or threats when you're asleep. For etiquette, at a certain number of ranks you can take back something someone else said. And so on.

[jindra34]

NichG: All that is true assuming its a die+modifier versus situation. For roll under (e.g. roll less than or equal skill+/-modifiers, and margin mattering) or roll xdy count successes it tends to alter how far one pushing one skill will get you. And add in the person running it knowing how to throw a curve ball (having players not get a chance to decide who makes the roll is a good example), and when, and you can have hyper specialization can end up meaning disaster.
So yes its very much an issue with system simplicity and the person running it playing to the party all the time, than it is a facet of the over arcing scheme.

[nedz]

In response to those who have argued that specialization is an inherrently good thing:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I tend to apply this to RPG characters as well. For a D20 example, look no further than the Factotum.

That quote is normally used to define the Trope of Competant Characters, which most of Heinlein's protagonists adhere to.

It is also a style of play which is well represented on CharOp boards, perhaps over representatively.

Basically it assumes that the Protagonists should succeed at most tasks. I find Characters with weaknesses to be more interesting; YMMV.

[The Grue]

That quote is normally used to define the Trope of Competant Characters, which most of Heinlein's protagonists adhere to.

It is also a style of play which is well represented on CharOp boards, perhaps over representatively.

Basically it assumes that the Protagonists should succeed at most tasks. I find Characters with weaknesses to be more interesting; YMMV.

Your response assumes a false dilemma; namely, that a character competent at a wide range of tasks has no weaknesses. "Competent at a lot of things" is not the same as "competent at all the things", nor is "competent" the same as "succeeds all the time".

[TheCountAlucard]

Luckily for my Exalt, most of those default to Intelligence, and Exalts don't take the usual penalty for untrained skill rolls.