Vague Skills?

[Mr. Mask]

"Small Barge Fisherman: 4 Ranks" So you're 4 ranks of good in stuff which a fisherman who worked a small barge would be good at.

What's your thoughts on systems they do that? It's nice to the alternative of tracking a hundred skills, but sometimes you do wonder, "what the heck is a small barge fisherman good at? What ISN'T he good at? Would a big barge be insurmountable? Or are all barges of equitable calibre?"

Let's say 4 ranks is the most you can have in the game. Will the fisherman be unstoppable when it comes to catching monsters in fishing nets? And even if that's completely unethical, will players care?

How many points does 4 ranks in Small Barge Fisherman cost? Is it the same as Big Barge Trader, or would that be a prestige class? Does my insurance company cover, "the GM set the campaign entirely on land"?



I think this system has a lot of potential, but it seems a bit tricky to use effectively. You could, for example, have no listed skills, and just decide how good your character is at something at the time when rolling (if you're with players you can trust, why not?).

[JAL_1138]

You could, for example, have no listed skills, and just decide how good your character is at something at the time when rolling (if you're with players you can trust, why not?).

Worked for AD&D 2e. Was one of the three skill options in the PHB, and the best one, IMO.

[obryn]

How many points does 4 ranks in Small Barge Fisherman cost? Is it the same as Big Barge Trader, or would that be a prestige class? Does my insurance company cover, "the GM set the campaign entirely on land"?

This is more or less how 13th Age handles it. AD&D had a similar system with "Secondary Skills," and there's a rule variant in 5e for it.

I think Background-as-Skill is a fantastic way to cut through the overwrought detail that many skill systems get into.

[Segev]

The strength of it is that you can basically take your background story and directly quantify it in mechanical measurement of what you can do effectively in the game. How much "blacksmith apprentice" impacts the game is given in numbers, so when "But I was a blacksmith's apprentice, shouldn't I be able to...?" comes up, you know the answer.

It really shines in the face of systems where you start to feel like you literally cannot buy enough skills to cover your background, because of all the things a person of some profession might need to be competent at.

On the other hand, it has as a weakness that very vagueness. What DOES a blacksmith's apprentice really need to know? Can you fast-talk your DM into letting it make you equally good as a jeweler and a heavy lifter and a judge of veins of ore in a mine? Or will he put his foot down at that last?

The other weakness it has is a perverse incentive to optimize your background to have the broadest required-set-of-skills you can imagine, because it allows you to spend your skill points (or equivalent) on one thing for a broader range of applications. You're good at more things for less investment, essentially.

That said, those weaknesses are not as bad as they sound, and generally can be tied up by reasonable GMs and players, because most "background professions" actually do tend to cover a roughly equivalent range of capabilities in our minds.


It doesn't work for every game and every system. And it can cause you to have backgrounds which waste resources because the majority of what they cover isn't useful in-game, where a more focused and precise skill system would let you spend points on skills that actually matter, justify them with your background, and hand-wave that you really are good at some other things not reflected on your sheet but which aren't likely to come up.

A hybrid system, where you first get background and put points into that, and then have some more focused skills which you can also pick up, and can, at times, combine background and skill (and at others just use background for those peripheral things it covers, and sometimes have to rely on the skill alone because the USE of it here isn't something your background would have specifically used over and over again) could be interesting.


D&D 5e handles it by having Background be a mechanical package which, amongst other things, includes two skill proficiencies.

[Vitruviansquid]

This is the reason a GM exists.

[Segev]

This is the reason a GM exists.

It is, but the counterpoint to that is that the reason rules exist is so that the GM isn't having to constantly make arbitrary judgment calls on every issue. There is a balance point between "everything is up to the GM" and "the rules explain what to do," and the ideal place for that point to balance varies from group to group and game to game.

[themaque]

It also really depends on the group you are playing with.

Now if I was playing with Marco and Ariel, I would go lighter skill systems such as this. Their more inherent role players and I know wouldn't abuse the system.

If I'm playing a game with Matt or David I better keep a more regimented system as either they will be uncomfortable in the free form environment or spend the entire time trying to abuse the system as they get the most enjoyment over breaking rules systems over their knee's and very good at BS.

Yes, "that's what a GM is for" but sometimes it's good to have the rules backing up a calling rather than flying in the face of it.

[GrayGriffin]

Most of the skills in the Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine RPG work like that. You can actually have Superior Immortal God-King 5 as a skill if no one minds. (The skills go from a -1 to 5 scale. Negative/zero skills don't give you extra points, and are usually used for characterization.) However, the use of skills is less "accomplishing one particular task" and more "accomplishing something effective, productive, or impressive through whatever I decide to do with this skill." It's a very freeform system.

[Grinner]

The other weakness it has is a perverse incentive to optimize your background to have the broadest required-set-of-skills you can imagine, because it allows you to spend your skill points (or equivalent) on one thing for a broader range of applications. You're good at more things for less investment, essentially.

Some such systems compensate for this by giving broad skills a lower value than specific skills.

For example, medicine would give a bonus of X to a skill check, while acupuncture would give a bonus of 2*X on a skill check. On the other hand, acupuncture would only be useful for correcting chi flows, assuming that's a thing in your game. It's not going to be useful for, say, staunching the party's fighter's wounds and piling his guts into place correctly after a manticore disembowels him.

[Segev]

Some such systems compensate for this by giving broad skills a lower value than specific skills.

For example, medicine would give a bonus of X to a skill check, while acupuncture would give a bonus of 2*X on a skill check. On the other hand, acupuncture would only be useful for correcting chi flows, assuming that's a thing in your game. It's not going to be useful for, say, staunching the party's fighter's wounds and piling his guts into place correctly after a manticore disembowels him.

The trick, of course, being defining what is a "broad skill" and what is a "specific skill."

Take, say, "Computers." That sounds like a broad skill. "Programming" sounds like a specific one. ...but wait, is "Programming" broad because "Mobile App Development" is more specific? You can't even say "well, just keep giving higher bonuses the more focused it is," because you have to find that "baseline" of "broad skills." "Computers," for instance, might be "specific" compared to "Electronics." And that might be specific compared to "devices" (which can include mechanical ones).

Most games which try this will have guidelines, but it's still an area of serious judgment call needed. Not that this makes it unworkable, but that it is something of which to be aware, especially as there's incentive to game your background for the broadest one you can claim while still getting a good bonus. Especially if you can then claim a narrower focus that you build up as multiple levels "in" on specificity.

[Mr. Mask]

You could try to get around it by having the bonus based off how many categories you invested in above it.

Example: Player Buys 1 rank of Technology --> 1 rank of Computers --> 1 rank Programming --> and 3 ranks of Android Programming.

Because Android is four skills in, it gets whatever bonus that is worth. If you rig the skill system right, then making too long a chain of skills will be counter-productive and will be easy for GMs to call out (Technology is already a big stretch). This does mean that buying 4 ranks of Surgeon is potentially less optimal than buying 1 Medicine, 1 Surgery, 4 Brain Surgery--but the latter has stronger roleplaying potential and makes for deeper characters anyway. It also does require you to actually specialize the skills.


EDIT:
Additionally, you could consider rules like, "the following skill in the branch cannot be more than double the preceding skill." So you couldn't have Programming 1 Android 3, Android would be capped at 2. If you raised Programming to 2 --> then Android could be raised up to 4.

Similarly, Programming is capped at 2 as long as Computers is at rank 1. And Computers is capped at 2 so long as Technology is at rank 1. Some systems have used similar things. It does prevent people over-savanting characters where they're the master hacker who doesn't know how to change their screensaver.

[oxybe]

depends on the game.

in something like D&D, which generally focuses on a specific type of game: "adventurers doing adventurer stuff", having a specific adventurer skillset for the characters to pick from is good, as it focuses on the theme of the game as a whole, especially if it's one that focuses on teamwork: each party member brings a different skillset to the adventure and relies on one-another to cover the bases of what adventurers might need to overcome.

that your character was a small barge fisherman generally isn't necessary to the gist of the gameplay, it might come into play incidentally or on the off chance the GM decides to put the adventure on a boat, but for the most part it won't matter.

neither would the fact that Ben's character was a seamstress or Karen's was a hotelier. even armorers and smithy skillsets are usually just there to do maintenance on equipment after a battle or make a new sword during downtime... in the middle of the adventure, those "catch all professions" generally don't matter... they shouldn't have to jockey for skill space with common adventurer skills like perception, stealth or general athletics.

now, having these profession/pre-adventurer lifestyle skills as an aside, a separate skillset that each character can have one of in addition to their more game-relevant skills? sure. i've run and had games run for me where you got free skills like that to round out your character.

games that games that want to have a bigger emphasis on your character's background or not tied to a genre better served with these looser skills then more specific ones that are tied to a particular playstyle or theme.

[Segev]

Some DMs I've had allow Profession skills to serve as catch-alls for incidental things. Profession(Sailor) might even substitute for Use Rope checks to tie knots used for climbing and rigging...but wouldn't apply to tying somebody up, for instance. Nor to setting up a lasso or trying to grappling-hook something.

[Ravens_cry]

I see it working for a game with more adjudicating, where the GM decides "OK, sure, you can do that that way." rather than strictly delineated abilities. Usually coming under the category of 'rules light'.

[goto124]

What is a Use Rope skill even for anyway?

[Arbane]

What is a Use Rope skill even for anyway?

Using rope, obviously.

(I think it was created to give something to compare Escape Artist skill-checks against.)

As for the OP, you might want to look at Risus.

[NichG]

Having recently been playing Numenera and the Strange, which both work like this, my observation is that it's hard for players to actually come up with vague skills. Everyone ends up defaulting to copying D&D skills and things like that.

[nedz]

What is a Use Rope skill even for anyway?

"We tie a rope to a tree and climb down the cliff"
Half way down: "Someone give me a Use Rope check ?"

...

"We tie up the prisoner"
Some time later: "Someone give me a Use Rope check ?"

[oxybe]

"We tie up the prisoner"
Some time later: "Someone give me a Use Rope check ?"

"Korddangit Nedz, this is why we instituted the [Kill first, Speak with dead later] protocol on people who have information we want!"

[Grinner]

Had an idea for a sanity check on differentiating broad and specific skills...Is the skill a job or a specific task? There is the issue of how specific specific skills ought to be (i.e. medicine vs. surgery vs. suturing), but it could be a start.

Because Android is four skills in, it gets whatever bonus that is worth. If you rig the skill system right, then making too long a chain of skills will be counter-productive and will be easy for GMs to call out (Technology is already a big stretch). This does mean that buying 4 ranks of Surgeon is potentially less optimal than buying 1 Medicine, 1 Surgery, 4 Brain Surgery--but the latter has stronger roleplaying potential and makes for deeper characters anyway. It also does require you to actually specialize the skills....

This brings up an interesting point. It is a neat take on the idea, but where do you delineate between skills? For example, "Android programming" is mostly just knowing Java (unless you use some atypical software, which could be an equipment thing). However, if you know Java, much of that Java knowledge will transfer over to C# with a few slight corrections to syntax (edit: and function names). Plus, you'll still be able to write Java software for desktops and such.

"Object-oriented programming" or "embedded systems" might be more accurate, for a certain definition of accurate, but this brings up another issue. If you yourself have no background in the subject, how do you make that call?

[Mr. Mask]

With the case of Android, I figured it'd give you a bonus in trying to adapt your game to work on the thousand different android phones and versions. Though more technically, yeah, it should be Programming --> Java --> Android.

To be honest, if the players don't know the subject, they're going to have limited understanding of how to apply it regardless. You can give them a description of the skill in a book that can look up, or they could examine the subject on wikipedia. But largely, you'll only be able to give them a vague understanding of its application. On the bright side, players will probably not pick skills that they don't have some idea of how to use them. Even if the idea is not accurate (where they use Hacking to do creative things).

As you mentioned, if a skill is sort of applicable then you should be able to apply it at a lesser value. You could have -1 rank for quite similar practices, -2 for sort of similar, and -3 and -4 when the skill barely relates, or such.

[Segev]

If you yourself have no background in the subject, how do you make that call?

On your Android phone, of course.

[daremetoidareyo]

You can treat any profession check as a knowledge check with the same subtitle. That'll help a little to determine if they know what a vein of iron looks like.

[JBPuffin]

RPG.net has a guy who started his column talking about a system that does this - Brent Dedeaux, his column being Tales from the Rocket House. It's not much advice, in the end, but some to consider.

I would lean towards using actions as skills instead of jobs - "Programming" rather than "Programmer". If you're going to do professions instead, then you probably want to clarify with your player what they intend to do with the skill. If they "don't know" (or genuinely aren't sure, they just knew what their profession was), well...looks like they need some more time .