# Help - Essential Skills Collection



## GMMichael (Feb 7, 2013)

For a project that might or might not already be posted here, I'd like some community input:

What character skills do you consider essential to RPGs (medieval or generic)?

Since different RPGs use different names, by "skill" I'm referring to anything that a character can learn to do progressively (continuously) better.  Some pretty popular examples are fighting, weaponsmithing, and horse riding.

Thanks!


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 8, 2013)

DMMike said:


> For a project that might or might not already be posted here, I'd like some community input:
> What character skills do you consider essential to RPGs (medieval or generic)?
> Since different RPGs use different names, by "skill" I'm referring to anything that a character can learn to do progressively (continuously) better.  Some pretty popular examples are fighting, weaponsmithing, and horse riding.
> Thanks!




I decided a few years ago that "adventurer" was sufficient of a profession that "craft" skills weren't necessary, so I'd leave out weaponsmithing.  I also assume the adventurers come from a culture that is much more "outdoors" than we are, so stuff like "firebuilding" is routine (unless it's not, but you're not likely to practice or improve on lighting fires in monsoons, so....)

Fighting is pretty generic.  If you're going that route, then spellcasting and sneaking.

Lore/knowledge.  Survival.  I'm Ok with it being generic, and not environment based.  If you can hunt rabbit in the forest, you can probably hunt it in the mountains too.  I have mixed feelings about tracking, since it's potentially very useful in game and is a pivotal class feature for the ranger, but it's hard to rationalize that barbarians (for instance) can't track.

I've shrunk the "interaction" skills (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate) down to "influence".


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 10, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> I decided a few years ago that "adventurer" was  sufficient of a profession that "craft" skills weren't necessary, so I'd  leave out weaponsmithing.  I also assume the adventurers come from a  culture that is much more "outdoors" than we are, so stuff like  "firebuilding" is routine (unless it's not, but you're not likely to  practice or improve on lighting fires in monsoons, so....)
> 
> Fighting is pretty generic.  If you're going that route, then spellcasting and sneaking.
> 
> ...




Interesting thing about smithing: if there's not a smith around,  you'll need the skill.  But if there's not a smith around, there's  probably not a forge or raw materials for smithing either, so having the  skill won't do you any good.  So I think I'm with you there.

Spellcasting and sneaking are definitely going to be included in my list.

Knowledge  - a good one.  But how often does it come up?  I guess it depends on  the particular type, say, Survival.  Anytime you leave a town you're at  the mercy of a character who has the Knowledge/Survival skill.  But  Knowledge/Architecture...not so much.  

I don't see why Tracking  should be only the ranger's purview either.  If you are really good at  Survival (i.e. have lots of points) you've probably had some practice at  tracking.  But I think that's beyond the scope of my project; I'm not  out to say who can do what, I'm out to say "here are some skills you'll  likely find interesting."

An interesting thing about the  interaction skills - they used to just be "roleplaying" in earlier  RPGs.  But it makes sense that one's character can be much better at  maniuplating than the player.  So make it a skill.  It's really a grey  area, whether you should have bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate, or just  influence, or just a Charisma bonus.  Or just an ability check.

I just looked at the list of GURPS  "lite" skills.  Carousing?  Hiking?  I wonder what skills are in the  full-strength version.  Since my goal is to make the most stripped-down  system possible, the hard part is saying "This skill is essential, but  This one you don't really need in a core ruleset."

I'm tempted  now to look at skills through the lens of classes.  Which skills would  the warrior, thief, priest, and wizard use?  Hmm...


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 11, 2013)

DMMike said:


> Interesting thing about smithing: if there's not a smith around,  you'll need the skill.  But if there's not a smith around, there's  probably not a forge or raw materials for smithing either, so having the  skill won't do you any good.  So I think I'm with you there.




I honestly didn't think of that.  My issues have been PCs that keep a stocked forge at their base, and somehow turn into master craftsmen in their down time.  It wasn't a game breaker, just...annoying.



> Knowledge  - a good one.  But how often does it come up?  I guess it depends on  the particular type, say, Survival.  Anytime you leave a town you're at  the mercy of a character who has the Knowledge/Survival skill.  But  Knowledge/Architecture...not so much.



Working off the d20 list, I whittled it down to Ancient, Local, Religion, Magic, Noble, and Nature (which takes over Herbalism, Animal Lore, stuff like that).  It's largely a campaign issue - I included Noble Lore because it made sense for knights & aristocracy, and didn't fit easily into other categories.



> An interesting thing about the  interaction skills - they used to just be "roleplaying" in earlier  RPGs.  But it makes sense that one's character can be much better at  maniuplating than the player.  So make it a skill.  It's really a grey  area, whether you should have bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate, or just  influence, or just a Charisma bonus.  Or just an ability check.



Intimidate always seemed like a specialization of Bluff, and Diplomacy is pretty much all about lying to people too.  Or maybe I'm just cynical.    But I am running into the issues of specialization - for my illusionist class variant, I put down "lying, smooth-talking, tall-tale telling, and yarn-spinning".  So...can he do "diplomacy" or not? 

I've been working skills out more or less on the fly as I redo the classes into a variant "basic" format.  Link to the blog in my sig.; all the classes were posted this year.


----------



## Razjah (Feb 11, 2013)

If you have Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard I would look over those skill lists- especially Mouse Guard. Burning Wheel has a huge list, but it covers race specific skills and non-adventuring skills such as smithing, farming, administration, and lots of more mundane skills. But, this does allow you to actually fill out the character's background with some capability in things the character used to do for a living.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 15, 2013)

Yeah...I don't (have access).  But, Razjah, if you'd like to throw some suggestions at me, I'm ready!

Nellsir, with the goal of creating a simple, core system, Socialize might actually work as a skill.  Same with Knowledge; I can probably draw up abstract rules that fit any specialization a character can dream up.  Something like this:

Knowledge (category) - Mental-based skill.  Knowledge is the skill used to represent things that your character knows that you, the player, do not.  Knowledge can be used untrained (without special education).  When you take the Knowledge skill, it applies to a general field, like the topic of a textbook, for example, Nature, Magic, or Society.  Skill checks look like these results:
10 - general or common knowledge of the subject.
14 - amateur study.
18 - professional study.
22 - obscure knowledge.
26 - sage only.
30 - godlike sentience.

So with real broad categories, the skill list starts to look like this -
Fight, Parry, Cast Spell (name), Knowledge (type), Profession (type), Sneak, Detect, Concentrate, Spirit, Repel Undead, Movement, Handle Animal, Perform, and Socialize.

And the sub-skills for game-groups wanting more specificity:
Fight: melee attack, ranged attack, wrestle, disarm, trip
Parry: dodge, block
Sneak: move silently, hide, pick pockets, pick locks
Detect: spot, listen, search
Concentrate: used in my system to defend against mental attacks, but includes focusing, maintaining spells, etc.
Spirit: used in my system to defend against metaphysical attacks, but can include anything ether-related
Movement: climb, swim, fly, sprint
Handle Animal: ride, train, calm
Perform: play instrument, act, use bard music, recite
Socialize: diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, gather info

But I'm brushing up against a fine line here: if your skills get too simple, they start to resemble your abilities.  So you might as well just add bonuses to your abilities, instead of having skills.  So skills must be somewhat specific, just to differentiate them from abilities...


----------



## Razjah (Feb 15, 2013)

The Mouse Guard Skill list:
-Administrator
-Apiarist
-Archivist
-Armorer
-Baker
-Boatcrafter
-Brewer
-Carpenter
-Cartographer
-Cook
-Deceiver
-Fighter
-Glazier
-Haggler
-Harvester
-Healer
-Hunter
-Insectrist
-Instructor
-Laborer
-Loremouse
-Militarist
-Miler
-Orator
-Pathfinder
-Persuader
-Potter
-Scientist
-Scout
-Smith
-Stonemason
-Survivalist
-Weather Watcher
-Weaver
-Wises (knowledge skills)

The basis for getting skills in character creation for Mouse Guard is a series of questions. What are you naturally talented at, what did your parents do, how do you convince people that your are right or do what you need, with whom did you apprentice, what did your mentor stress in training, what experience do you have in the Guard, what is your specialty, what are you particularly knowledgeable about? Each question has a tailored list. Maxing skills is less important than being well rounded because you can get help from your party and use FoRKs (Field of Related Knowledge) to boost your roll. Mouse Guard uses a die pool, but the list would work pretty well. Also, you could trim a lost of the craftsman skills into a single group. Craftsman (smith) works and keeps the list short. As for Wises, they are generally X-wise. In Mouse guard you can have duck-wise, hidey hole-wise, escort-wise, and lots of things someone can be knowledgeable about. For an adventuring game- cavern-wise, underground-wise, orc-wise, ritual-wise, religion-wise, etc. 

This list gives good adventuring skills and plenty of ways to help people in towns. Boatcrafting allows mice to turn some leaves into a boat to cross a stream )(serious problem when you are mouse sized). It works with making rafts in adventuring (see any show like _Man vs Wild). _


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 15, 2013)

Glazier?  Are there lots of broken windows in Mouse Guard?


----------



## Razjah (Feb 15, 2013)

Well, the setting is still getting over a war with ferrets. I really have no idea, it's just in the list.


----------



## Kalontas (Feb 15, 2013)

Are we talking a class-based system or skill-based (or a mix)? Because it makes a lot of difference. Class systems tend to have just a handful of very generic skills that aren't usually covered by class's default abilities. Skill systems (have to) have a heck-load of skills for virtually everything you can think of. Of course, many skills can still roll up together (so there probably isn't a lot of systems with a Glazier skill) but they will have a lot more skills than the other ones. Thus the list on GURPS-lite and why it matters which system is yours.


----------



## Razjah (Feb 15, 2013)

Mouse Guard and Burning Wheel are skill based systems. Skill systems seem to have better skill lists, or more interesting ones. Plus Mouse Guard is all about a small group of mice (the party) overcoming loads of obstacles to help small communities and a few towns. That seemed to be an excellent starting place for a list of skills for an RPG. 

Another list worth looking at is in FATE system used in Dresden Files. I like the way the skills are broad with trappings, one character's contacts skill is different from another character's contacts skill because of background and circles traveled.


----------



## Derren (Feb 16, 2013)

If we are just talking about essential skills without any specific setting in mind let me be a bit more generic.

- Skills to travel
This includes both skills for physical travel like climbing and traversing difficult terrain and also skills to pilot appropriate vehicles, be it horses, cars or spaceships.

- Skills to interact with others
Convincing or deceiving NPCs. Deceptions are not limited to being verbal but also includes disguises

- Skills to hide your presence
Most of the time sneaking deserves its own skill instead of being rolled into a other skill. This would also include skills to bypass security mechanisms

- Skills to detect things
Skills to counter hiding skills mentioned above but also to notice inanimate but hidden objects

- Skills to know things
This highly depends on the setting.

- Skills to craft things
While some systems get away with not having such skills I personally think they should be part of the system, at least for simpler things

- Skills to fight and do "magic"
Unless the combat system doesn't use skills they are needed in pretty much any rpg as violence is the most basic conflict resolution.

How granular those skills are depends on the system you want to use. Does walking on a rope require its own skill? Does sneaking use a different skill than hiding? Personally I prefer a rather large skill list with some skills (knowledge and crafting) being "fill in" skills as it allows for better specialization/characterization of PCs. But it is also possible to only have 1 skill for each category if you want.


----------



## Razjah (Feb 16, 2013)

Well this list has all the basics. That is really all you need to play.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 16, 2013)

FATE Core (the December draft, anyway) had the following:
• Athletics
• Burglary
• Contacts
• Crafts
• Deceit
• Drive
• Empathy
• Fighting
• Intimidation
• Investigation
• Lore
• Notice
• Physique
• Rapport
• Resources
• Shooting
• Stealth
• Will

Which seems like a very small number for a skill-based system, but Aspects and Stunts can add a lot of detail in FATE.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 16, 2013)

Going through the Mouse Guard list, I see these skills jumping out to the average gamer:
Brewer, cartographer, deceiver, fighter, haggler, healer, hunter, pathfinder, persuader, scout, survivalist, and wises.
d20 counterparts:
Craft  (beer), profession (cartographer), bluff, fighter?, diplomacy, heal,  survival, survival, diplomacy, survival, um survival, and knowledge.

But to figure out which to use, I have to figure out how I feel about Kalontas's question.

Class-based or skill-based?

I'm  leaning toward skill-based, because I want the game system to support  organic class growth, with the option of including classes.  I also want  players and groups to be able to pick their own skills, which would  include both hidey-hole-wise OR carousing.

So I'm thinking about  using a handful of skills more as demonstration than as an exhaustive  list, with players being welcome to add their own skills to personalize  their characters.

d20 has about 36 skills, GURPS lite has about  60, and Mouse Guard has about 35, for comparison.  So the skills list  should probably fall around 30 or less, since the goal is to have  something playable, yet leave room for expansion.

So let's say  skill-based system, and I'll need at least 18 skills to beat Skyrim's  bare-bones skill system.

(Posted late.  I have to go back and check out the FATE skills and Derren's post...)


----------



## Razjah (Feb 17, 2013)

The fighter and hunter skills are the combat skills for Mouse Guard. Fighter allows fighting of anything, Hunter is specific to non-anthropomorphic animals (Mice and Weasels). During the war fighter was emphasized, in the more peaceful time hunter is a more appropriate skill.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 17, 2013)

Thanks for the FATE skills, Ratskinner.  That's a pretty comprehensive, yet short, list.  At 18 skills long, it'll provide a good counterpoint to the Skyrim list (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Skills_(Skyrim)).

The P&P system starts with three ability scores, and gives bonuses to skill performance based on ability.  So there's one reason to sort skills three ways.  Skyrim skills can be somewhat divided by class, which is a nod to class-based characters, with three main classes being warrior, wizard, and thief.  I'd like to have skills that focus on abilities, since characters are defined first by abilities, and class comes later.  (But that doesn't have to be the case, right?)

With the FATE list:
Physical: athletics, burglary, drive, fighting, physique, shooting, stealth. 
Mental: crafts, deceit, investigation, lore, notice, will.
Metaphys: contacts, empathy, intimidation, rapport, resources.

With the Skyrim list:
Physical: archery, block, heavy armor, one handed, two handed, light armor, lockpicking, sneak.
Mental: smithing, alchemy, pickpocket, speech.
Metaphys: (6 schools of magic, or skills of magic).

Since there's room for expansion of abilities, there should be room to expand skills, using skills that are specific enough to be useful, but generic enough to be broken-down into more skills, or divided amongst more abilities.  Like the Fighting skill could become One Handed, Two Handed, Brawl, Grapple, Shooting, etc.

Derren seems to have laid out the bare-minimum number of skills: Movement, Socialize, Stealth, Notice, Knowledge, Craft, Fight, and Cast Spell.  I could use a list larger than that...but how large?


----------



## Stormonu (Feb 18, 2013)

Just to throw in, the World of Darkness skill list:

Mental
-Academics
-(Computer)
-Crafts
-Investigation
-Medicine
-Occult
-Politics
-(Science)/Alchemy

Physical
-Athletics
-Brawl
-(Drive)/Ride
-(Firearms)/Ranged Weapons
-Larceny
-Stealth
-Survival
-Weaponry/Melee

Social
-Animal Ken
-Empathy
-Expression
-Intimidation
-Persuasion
-Socialize
-Streetwise
-Subterfuge


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 18, 2013)

Razjah said:


> Mouse Guard and Burning Wheel are skill based systems. Skill systems seem to have better skill lists, or more interesting ones.



Well, Burning Wheel doesn't really have a skill list in the most common sense. It just has a (huge!) list of everything that is referred to anywhere else in the book and can be used as a skill _or_ might represent a (binary) feat a character might be capable of.
It also features plenty of overlapping and redundant skills. 
In some ways, it's closer to systems that don't bother to list skills, e.g. Over the Edge, in which you simply write down a couple of things (in your own words) you want your character to be good at. It's what D&D Next appeared to do in its earliest beta version, i.e. simply provide a bunch of specific activities in which a character would receive a bonus to an ability roll. 

In Burning Wheel, every time you add new races or lifepaths, you'll also end up adding new skills.

I've never read or played it, but judging from the list that's been posted here Mouse Guard seems to take a different approach with a very compact list of professions that each cover a potentially wide set of different skills.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 18, 2013)

Alright, I'mma take another stab at it here.  But first, here's the theory:  skills are what the character -has learned- to do well.  Abilities are  his inherent ability to do anything well.  So skills should be more  specific than abilities.  The P&P system is the springboard for more  complex games, but it is also a hardy, standalone RPG.  So the skill  list should both guide players toward selecting good skills, and provide  interesting (and basic) options for character specialization (very much  like FATE and Skyrim).

Physical skills:
Fight (unarmed, melee, missile), parry (physical defense), sneak, movement, larceny.
Mental skills:
Knowledge (nature, scholar), profession (healer, smith, musician, alchemist), detect, concentrate (mental defense).
Metaphysical skills:
Cast spell, spirit (metaphysical defense), repel undead, handle animal, persuade, deceive.

Feels rough.  How do you feel about it?

Edit: added types of fighting, and made spell casting a general skill (instead of each spell being a skill).


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 19, 2013)

DMMike said:


> Alright, I'mma take another stab at it here.  But first, here's the theory:  skills are what the character -has learned- to do well.  Abilities are  his inherent ability to do anything well.  So skills should be more  specific than abilities.  The P&P system is the springboard for more  complex games, but it is also a hardy, standalone RPG.  So the skill  list should both guide players toward selecting good skills, and provide  interesting (and basic) options for character specialization (very much  like FATE and Skyrim).
> 
> Physical skills:
> Fight (unarmed, melee, missile), parry (physical defense), sneak, movement, larceny.
> ...




Will there be "feats" or some other kind of "tweak" character traits? If so, consider letting that do some of the work specializing skills. For example, let a Profession be a universal tweak, when applicable. Specific professions with possible in-game functions (like Alchemist or Healer), could be broken-out into a unique tweak. Otherwise, let _Musician _grant a bonus whenever it would help; _persuad__e_ an arts lover, _detect_ something wrong about a song, _concentrate_ against a sonic attack, etc.

Otherwise, it looks okay to me. You might find gaps or other issues with playtesting.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 19, 2013)

Yes, there's a Perk system for improving characters whenever a Skill wouldn't be appropriate.  Perks do everything else for characters, from racial features, to class features, to bending rules.  (In fact, I'll probably be posting about those next.)

I can see how Musician would be a general-situation bonus.  Reminds me of the general bonus gained from ability scores (gain your Mental bonus when doing anything requiring thought or nerves).  Is this what you were suggesting for Profession too?  Anyway, Profession (Musician) would be more of a general skill (like the rest, hopefully) that allows a character to play a harp, sing, or even use music-magic with increasing proficiency.  With a trimmed-down skillset, I was seeing a need for skills that reach out to specific classes, even if there technically are no classes.

In addition, some skills are universal.  All characters need to move, find enemies, and interact.  Hence the movement, detect, persuade and deceive skills.  The rest seem more class-related.

The tough part (or subjective one), is "do these skills cover all standard character skills, without being too broad, and still general enough to leave room for more specialized skills?"


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 19, 2013)

DMMike said:


> Yes, there's a Perk system for improving characters whenever a Skill wouldn't be appropriate.  Perks do everything else for characters, from racial features, to class features, to bending rules.  (In fact, I'll probably be posting about those next.)
> 
> I can see how Musician would be a general-situation bonus.  Reminds me of the general bonus gained from ability scores (gain your Mental bonus when doing anything requiring thought or nerves).  Is this what you were suggesting for Profession too?  Anyway, Profession (Musician) would be more of a general skill (like the rest, hopefully) that allows a character to play a harp, sing, or even use music-magic with increasing proficiency.  With a trimmed-down skillset, I was seeing a need for skills that reach out to specific classes, even if there technically are no classes.




Yes, that's what I was suggesting. Here's the problem with a Musician skill: "Which skill does he roll when he's playing his lute to persuade somebody? Musician or Persuade?" Now, that may not sound like much of a problem, but it immediately leads into "skill stacking" or "synergy" as d20 called it.

Basically, when a character attempts something, you have two ways of building the roll: The D&D way is to layer on modifiers from 3 or more various types of character trait, and the....other way(?) The D&D way is much harder to balance, and has the additional burden of making sure that the various traits remain orthogonal to each other within the group and that the groups remain orthogonal to each other. In this system, a character's skill rating is generally seen to represent their amount of training in a certain activity, not their ability to perform that activity. 

To me, it sounds like you want to go the other way. That is, a relatively small number of skills, each of which covers a lot of ground, but are all orthogonal things that a character might want to accomplish. In this way, each skill represents a character's _aggregate _ability to accomplish a task. The tweaks just add some variety and spice.

Cortex Plus as seen in the Marvel game is the only one I know of that successfully does both. It uses some very unusual dice mechanics, though.



DMMike said:


> In addition, some skills are universal.  All characters need to move, find enemies, and interact.  Hence the movement, detect, persuade and deceive skills.  The rest seem more class-related.
> 
> The tough part (or subjective one), is "do these skills cover all standard character skills, without being too broad, and still general enough to leave room for more specialized skills?"




As an old Fudge GM, I'm familiar with the problem.  Since you're planning on having Perks, anyway, I'd leave the specialization burden to them.

Taking a step back. I don't know what your motivations are. Is there a reason you aren't adapting FATE or Savage Worlds or some other generic system? It sounds to me like your kinda trying to redo the d20 system "right" to genericize it...and that sounds rather like a fool's errand to me. (Also, to some extent or another, already done with M&M.) I mean, you're kinda re-inventing the wheel, here.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 20, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> Yes, that's what I was suggesting. Here's the problem with a Musician skill: "Which skill does he roll when he's playing his lute to persuade somebody? Musician or Persuade?" Now, that may not sound like much of a problem, but it immediately leads into "skill stacking" or "synergy" as d20 called it.
> 
> The D&D way is much harder to balance, and has the additional burden of making sure that the various traits remain orthogonal to each other within the group and that the groups remain orthogonal to each other. In this system, a character's skill rating is generally seen to represent their amount of training in a certain activity, not their ability to perform that activity.
> 
> ...




"Which skill does he roll when he's playing his lute to persuade somebody? Musician or Persuade?"
The key portion there was "playing his lute."  But I do see the overlap there, that some skills don't necessarily exclude others.

I'm not having a good grip on the word "orthogonal," unless you're referring to the way in which two skills completely fail to overlap.  In the current case, I'm actually okay with the skills being less than orthogonal, because I want the players, ideally, to be able to make up their own skills.  The standard set of skills is just to please the Rules As Written crew.

Motivations!  D&D Next is my motivation.  As is Eamon Deluxe.  I want an RPG system, completely customizable, yet stand-alone, that doesn't charge $35 per sourcebook.  Eamon was a PC text-based RPG for which anyone could write and publish adventures.  Well, you can already write and publish your own adventures for pretty much any RPG.  But since every DM has house rules, why not leave the rules themselves open to modification as well?  So the P&P system takes the d20 rules, and pulls out as many non-essential mechanics as possible.  Re-introduce Skills and Perks as ways to build your character the way you want, as well as ways to interpret other RPGs and make them compatible with P&P.  There's the motivation.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 20, 2013)

Yes, "orthogonal" basically means non-overlapping or non-mixing. If you're cool with it, rock on.



DMMike said:


> Motivations!  D&D Next is my motivation.  As is Eamon Deluxe.  I want an RPG system, completely customizable, yet stand-alone, that doesn't charge $35 per sourcebook.  Eamon was a PC text-based RPG for which anyone could write and publish adventures.  Well, you can already write and publish your own adventures for pretty much any RPG.  But since every DM has house rules, why not leave the rules themselves open to modification as well?  So the P&P system takes the d20 rules, and pulls out as many non-essential mechanics as possible.  Re-introduce Skills and Perks as ways to build your character the way you want, as well as ways to interpret other RPGs and make them compatible with P&P.  There's the motivation.




Okay, that's fine. Sounds like you're on your way. Unless you're really trying to stay very close to d20, I'd suggest looking at FATE. It has a lot of the characteristics you're shooting for already. Also, if you didn't know: FATE and its ancestor Fudge are OGL'd. FATE, at least, has a very active community and easily translates new settings. There are a couple different versions (not all sequential, either) of the FATE family. The new FATE Core version will be out sometime this year and should be excellent at your goals (if a little abstract). There's even a version or two that use attributes (Icons is the best of those, IMO YMMV). There's also free versions. You could probably take the FATE system and replace the die-mechanic with d20's, if you like. It all depends on how close to d20 you want to stay. Good luck with it, I hope you have fun.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 21, 2013)

Thanks for the suggestion.  I checked FATE 2.0 out.  And to be honest, it's not enough like Final Fantasy 1 for me.  Which is really the bar to which I hold RPGs.  Being like FF1 means that characters have levels, stats/abilities, classes, hit points, attack and defense ratings, and gear which increases those attack and defense ratings.  True, FF1 was probably modeled after AD&D rules, but FF1 featured the innovation that D&D 3.0 eventually adopted: up is good.

With the huge explosion of content under the d20 OGL, the subsequent release of nearly-related 4.0, and the seeming return to 3.5 in 5.0, I saw a chance to tie all of it together and create a massive pool of source material.  Except there would be no charge.  But to do that, I needed something customizable, so I stripped d20 down to its nuts-and-bolts by removing hit points, saving throws, armor class, alignment, class features, action types, opportunity attacks, CMBs, races, spell resistance, and more.

What's left, basically, is this:
Abilities, skills, perks, levels, d20 rolls versus the DM, and rounds with initiative.

And I'm just now thinking about pulling out the dice too: for any die roll, you can choose to take a result equal to half the highest result on the die...


----------



## Razjah (Feb 21, 2013)

DMMike said:


> And I'm just now thinking about pulling out the dice too: for any die roll, you can choose to take a result equal to half the highest result on the die...




The "take 10" rule?


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 23, 2013)

Take 10.  But extended to any die: take 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 10.

Since P&P has both DM and player rolling, if both start taking half, it's up to the losing side to decide to roll instead of taking 10.


----------



## pastshelfdate (Feb 24, 2013)

*Trying to be diplomatic about diplomacy and such*



Nellisir said:


> I honestly didn't think of that.  My issues have been PCs that keep a stocked forge at their base, and somehow turn into master craftsmen in their down time.  It wasn't a game breaker, just...annoying.
> 
> 
> Working off the d20 list, I whittled it down to Ancient, Local, Religion, Magic, Noble, and Nature (which takes over Herbalism, Animal Lore, stuff like that).  It's largely a campaign issue - I included Noble Lore because it made sense for knights & aristocracy, and didn't fit easily into other categories.
> ...




That is tricky.  Professional diplomats operate on a different level, knowing when and how to give the other parties wiggle room for saving face.  But adventurers?  That "Influence" idea looks good for streamlining.  It's broad in scope.  As for intimidate and bluff, I guess no matter how big and scary looking someone is, eventually they run into people who aren't that easily impressed.  So at some point, intimidating would depend on bluffing.

I've never run a game, so I'm not as aware of the trade-off between fewer broad skills and a longer list of more specific skills.  I hope there are enough options to make all groups happy.



Nellisir said:


> I've been working skills out more or less on the fly as I redo the classes into a variant "basic" format.  Link to the blog in my sig.; all the classes were posted this year.


----------



## pastshelfdate (Feb 24, 2013)

DMMike said:


> For a project that might or might not already be posted here, I'd like some community input:
> 
> What character skills do you consider essential to RPGs (medieval or generic)?
> 
> ...




One guy with whom I've been role-playing has sized me up well, by saying I try to create characters that can't be hurt.  So for me, perception generally (the ability to see trouble coming) comes first, followed by whatever helps me avoid it (stealth) or fend it off: dodge (more a maneuver), parry (another), tumble.  Knowledge skills can do that, too.  This all goes out the window when someone else in the party is in danger, but I'd still like to sneak up on the threat.

I'm not as experienced as the people with whom I play, and I don't have any of my RPG books with me, but I'll offer my thoughts on skills, for what they're worth: short list (with more detailed skills in parentheses).
Perception (passive perception vs. intensive detection; the usual spot/listen)
Survival, maybe including tracking, but not as high as if specialized in tracking (hunting/fishing, camping, hiking, tracking, tanning, leather-working)
Magic/arcana
Socializing/Influence
Martial/Combat/Defense
Knowledge - Magic/Arcana, Science (depending on tech level, mechanics, engineering, math, physics, biology, etc.), Medicine/First Aid, History, Society (high to low), ...
Athletics(acrobatics/tumbling, running, swimming, climbing, ...)
... that's all that comes to my mind, in absence of RPG books or internet searches.  I hope it's more valuable this way, rather than less.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 24, 2013)

All input helps, PSD.  Because my goal isn't just to help me, here.  It's to help everyone.

Here's the list I'm currently using:
Physical skills:
Fight/unarmed, fight/melee, fight/missile, parry, sneak, movement, larceny
Mental skills:
Knowledge/Nature, knowledge/scholar, profession/healer, prof/musician, prof/alchemist, prof/smith, detect, concentrate
Metaphysical skills:
Cast spell, spirit, repel undead, handle animal, persuade, deceive

So of the skills you mentioned, I think they're all included.  Athletics and Movement are the same thing.  I don't have a Knowledge-Arcana, but you could get something similar with the Cast Spell skill or Know/Scholar.  Higher ranks would be required to know magical stuff with Know/Scholar, since magic isn't really fourth-grade material.  Know/Nature and survival are the same thing.

Another one of my goals is to be able to branch the skills out, so for example:
Movement becomes - acrobatics/tumbling, running, swimming, climbing
Know/Nature becomes - hunting/fishing, camping, hiking, tracking
Detect becomes - spot, listen, search
Fight/Unarmed becomes - grapple, kung-fu, brawl

My question to you: is 21 skills enough to make characters interesting while remaining a fundamental, simple RPG?


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 25, 2013)

pastshelfdate said:


> That is tricky.  Professional diplomats operate on a different level, knowing when and how to give the other parties wiggle room for saving face.  But adventurers?  That "Influence" idea looks good for streamlining.  It's broad in scope.  As for intimidate and bluff, I guess no matter how big and scary looking someone is, eventually they run into people who aren't that easily impressed.  So at some point, intimidating would depend on bluffing.




I have a real issue with the Intimidate skill using Strength, btw.  Charisma is presence, notability, making people notice you.  Scary people have high Charisma.  Danny Trejo?  High charisma.  People notice him.

I had a player who used Chr as his dump stat, and kept trying to intimidate people.  His character was a bridge troll fighter, and he thought he ought to be scary and intimidating and fearsome, even though his Charisma was 7.  

I told him that with a Charisma of 7 no one took him seriously. He was more likely to be patted on the head (or stuffed in a sack - as another character put it, he was nine feet of ugly in three feet of troll.)


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 25, 2013)

DMMike said:


> My question to you: is 21 skills enough to make characters interesting while remaining a fundamental, simple RPG?




I think 21 is on the verge of being not simple.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 25, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> I have a real issue with the Intimidate skill using Strength, btw.  Charisma is presence, notability, making people notice you.  Scary people have high Charisma.



The problem goes away once you stop assign fixed abilities to skills. The WoD matrix approach of allowing any skill to be used with any ability (if it makes sense!) is much more flexible. E.g. I'm pretty sure it's possible to intimidate someone using intelligence.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 25, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> I think 21 is on the verge of being not simple.




I  think you're right.  The problem I ran into earlier though, with a tiny  skills list, is that when a skill is too broad, it basically acts like a  beefed-up ability score.  Not much point in having skills when they  cover anything a character might be interested in, and actually fail to  make characters more interesting.  (Important point: P&P characters  have only three rules-related features: abilities, skills, and perks.   Any other differences are superficial.)

So if I have, say, two  skills per ability score (of three), and a character can specialize in  one skill per ability score, then with skills alone, I can have eight  different types of characters (2x2x2).  But they're each three-trick  ponies.  With about seven skills per ability score, and perks thrown in  (which are pretty much limitless in variety), that number  becomes...2,487.  Okay I made that up, but it's a much bigger number.

Let's  go simpler...the three Fight skills become one, Sneak and Larceny get  combined, Knowledge is just one skill with a vague focus on whatever the  character's occupation is, throw profession in with knowledge, persuade  and deceive become Interact, and Detect gets tossed in favor of just a  simple Mental check, or a perk.

Short list:
Fight, Parry, Sneak, Move, Knowledge, Concentrate, Cast Spell, Spirit, Repel Undead, Handle Animal, Interact.

11 skills.  Almost 4 per ability. 3 defenses, and 8 proactive skills.  It's a decent list, but I feel like it doesn't provide enough tailoring options (for a system that doesn't force classes on the characters).  For example, if a front-line fighter takes the (generalized) Sneak skill, then he's suddenly an expert in _everything_ rogue-ish, from hiding, being quiet, lockpicking, black-marketeering, pocket picking, forgery, filching, and so forth.

By the way, the Spirit (metaphysical defense) skill becomes more useful, and identifiable, if renamed Will, or Willpower.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 25, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> The problem goes away once you stop assign fixed abilities to skills. The WoD matrix approach of allowing any skill to be used with any ability (if it makes sense!) is much more flexible. E.g. I'm pretty sure it's possible to intimidate someone using intelligence.




The problem also goes away if you don't allow Intimidate to be used with Strength, which is what I did, and was easier than reworking the whole skill system.

You might have an intimidating intelligence but that doesn't mean you can intimidate someone.  If you say "um" a lot, and stammer, and look down, and act indecisive and unsure, you aren't going to be believed.  That's not Intelligence or Strength - that's Charisma.  It's posture, presence, bearing, attitude, and body language.  I know big strong guys that don't intimidate me, and little guys that do.

When the troll's player got particularly obnoxious, I'd tell him that his character's voice was cracking.  And then the NPCs would ask the troll how puberty was coming along.
(I'd like to add that I only did this because the guy kept trying the same thing over and over, despite being shot down every time.  He dumped on Charisma, he had to live with it. Great player otherwise.)


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 25, 2013)

DMMike said:


> Short list:Fight, Parry, Sneak, Move, Knowledge, Concentrate, Cast Spell, Spirit, Repel Undead, Handle Animal, Interact.
> 
> 11 skills.  Almost 4 per ability. 3 defenses, and 8 proactive skills.  It's a decent list, but I feel like it doesn't provide enough tailoring options (for a system that doesn't force classes on the characters).  For example, if a front-line fighter takes the (generalized) Sneak skill, then he's suddenly an expert in _everything_ rogue-ish, from hiding, being quiet, lockpicking, black-marketeering, pocket picking, forgery, filching, and so forth.




Well, if a stab-in-the-back thief takes (generalized) Fight skill, is he suddenly an expert in everything fighter-ish?  If so, then I'd call that fair.  If not, then why not, and whatever you did to Fight you could do to Sneak.  And Cast Spell, presumably.  Maybe 1 "point" into Sneak gets you a +1 in everything, or a +3 in a sub-skill of your choice.


----------



## pastshelfdate (Feb 25, 2013)

DMMike said:


> All input helps, PSD.  Because my goal isn't just to help me, here.  It's to help everyone.
> 
> Here's the list I'm currently using:
> Physical skills:
> ...




For me, the main thing would be that the list include all possible skills, in 21 baskets, in this case.  I guess your Knowledge/Scholar would include mechanics and engineering, both of which have their place in a medieval/fantasy setting.  I may not be the best for saying whether 21 skills is simple enough.  They should fit on one character sheet with everything else.  But I'm so used to building characters, I don't flinch at Hero System or Role Master.  Totally new players may be overwhelmed, no matter how simple you make it.

I have one friend who was running middle school kids in a game with only three stats, at a convention.  I don't know how it went, but as I passed by, they seemed engrossed.  That's probably going too far, but it shows what can be done.  It is role-playing, not roll-playing - though I admit to playing the numbers, mostly.


----------



## pastshelfdate (Feb 25, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> I have a real issue with the Intimidate skill using Strength, btw.  Charisma is presence, notability, making people notice you.  Scary people have high Charisma.  Danny Trejo?  High charisma.  People notice him.
> 
> I had a player who used Chr as his dump stat, and kept trying to intimidate people.  His character was a bridge troll fighter, and he thought he ought to be scary and intimidating and fearsome, even though his Charisma was 7.
> 
> I told him that with a Charisma of 7 no one took him seriously. He was more likely to be patted on the head (or stuffed in a sack - as another character put it, he was nine feet of ugly in three feet of troll.)




I love that last comment.  I can understand how even a physically imposing character could lose impact, with such a low charisma.  I've never run a game, but I'd be tempted to let him use Strength for Intimidate, but with serious penalties.  It would be a very blunt instrument.  He'd be more likely just to scare others into shock than to get them to do anything in particular.  He'd really have to use a combination of Strength and Intelligence, and a lot of both, to make up for so little Charisma.  There would also have to be some really good role-playing to intimidate anyone.  Even then, there would be some things that would be easier done with Charisma.  So a 16 Charisma could accomplish as much persuasion as a combination of 18 Strength and 18 Intelligence.

I can understand not wanting to let such a player abuse the rules and go with such a low Charisma, but I also don't think it's realistic not to allow strength to intimidate at all.   Has no system tried including skills that are based on more than one stat?  I think Hero system bases Stun on more than just Constitution (Where is my book?) - or is that Body?  Couldn't some Performance skills be based on Charisma and Dexterity?  

I know there are feats in the d20 system that allow a different stat bonus to be used for some things.  But there need to be limits.  I don't envy you, when you have to deal with such things.


----------



## pastshelfdate (Feb 25, 2013)

*Trying for flexibility without breaking the game*



Nellisir said:


> Well, if a stab-in-the-back thief takes (generalized) Fight skill, is he suddenly an expert in everything fighter-ish?  If so, then I'd call that fair.  If not, then why not, and whatever you did to Fight you could do to Sneak.  And Cast Spell, presumably.  Maybe 1 "point" into Sneak gets you a +1 in everything, or a +3 in a sub-skill of your choice.




There are elements of the big, standard d20 class system that may help control that.  Fighters get rather few skill points, so they could never have as much stealth as a rogue, without severely weakening the character in all other aspects of being a fighter.  Likewise, rogues get fewer feats and would have the same problem, trying to equal a fighter in combat.  Would that be enough to allow more flexibility without letting players abuse the system?  Right now, is there a feat that would allow a fighter to add Stealth as a class skill?  And if a rogue is willing to use the rogue's fewer feats for combat feats, that's already allowed, though many of those have a Strength minimum.

I just don't know enough about it.  Class systems frustrate me, sometimes, but they are maybe a bit easier to use than straight point-based systems.  And class systems encourage players to specialize within their team.  I like that.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 26, 2013)

pastshelfdate said:


> There would also have to be some really good role-playing to intimidate anyone.



Yeah, I mean, I wasn't a complete pain (at least, not that I recall).  The player was my cousin (and might have been living with me part of the time), and he had a tendency to try and creep in little extra stuff for his character. If he role-played an intimidation, I'd let it play out.  It was when he said things like "I'm going to roll to intimidate him and get him to move" that I said no.  There were other characters in the game who were built around charisma skills; he didn't get to have his schtick and theirs too.



> Has no system tried including skills that are based on more than one stat?  I think Hero system bases Stun on more than just Constitution (Where is my book?) - or is that Body?  Couldn't some Performance skills be based on Charisma and Dexterity?
> I know there are feats in the d20 system that allow a different stat bonus to be used for some things.  But there need to be limits.  I don't envy you, when you have to deal with such things.




I'm a specialist.  I've played D&D, and nothing but D&D, for...crap, about 25 years.  I haven't seen a good way of doing it within D&D.  Other games might be able to.

It's all a trade-off.  I try to be clear, fair, and not a jerk about what I allow and don't allow.


----------



## Derren (Feb 26, 2013)

pastshelfdate said:


> I can understand not wanting to let such a player abuse the rules and go with such a low Charisma, but I also don't think it's realistic not to allow strength to intimidate at all.   Has no system tried including skills that are based on more than one stat?




DSA has a system where every skill is linked to 3 stats (sometimes the same stat multiple times). But that system also has rather uncommon stats instead of the D&D Str, Dex, etc. For example courage is a stat.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 26, 2013)

pastshelfdate said:


> Has no system tried including skills that are based on more than one stat?



Well, in the most popular German rpg 'Das Schwarze Auge' (The Dark Eye), you roll three d20 for every skill check, each of them being associated with one of (up to*) three stats that are important for the skill. If any of the three ability checks fails, you can turn them into a success by 'spending' points from your skill. You achieve a basic success if you retain 0 skill points and higher degree successes if more skill points are left over.

*: A few skills duplicate a stat for their checks.

(Made up) example: You have 5 skill points in the Climb skill (based on Str, Dex, and Con). Your ability scores are Str 15, Dex 10, and Con 13. You then roll an 8 for your Str check, a 14 for your Dex check, and a 10 for your Con check. This means you have to use 4 skill points to turn your Dex roll into a success, while the other two were immediately successful, leaving you with a success and 1 skill point left over, i.e. slightly better than a basic success.

The system makes sure that dump stats are very painful indeed, since there's always a couple of skills that are important for your profession where your dump stat plays a role. It's generally more beneficial to have a character with balanced stats, especially since it gets more expensive to improve skills that are already high.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 26, 2013)

I could see that being slow in play, but I like it anyways.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 27, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> Well, if a stab-in-the-back thief takes (generalized) Fight skill, is he suddenly an expert in everything fighter-ish?  If so, then I'd call that fair.  If not, then why not, and whatever you did to Fight you could do to Sneak.  And Cast Spell, presumably.  Maybe 1 "point" into Sneak gets you a +1 in everything, or a +3 in a sub-skill of your choice.




That's pretty much the case.  Which is why I can't give more skills to one "class" than another; pretty much everything is a skill, and they're not class-restricted.

Now I'm wondering: should a fighter have to spend skill points on three different skills (Fight/Unarmed, Melee, and Missile) to be a fighting master, while a wizard needs only one skill: Cast Spell?  Cast Spell was a catch-all, and each different spell was a skill.  But then I realized that would make wizards really good at only a couple of spells.

Maybe that's not so bad.  A fighter has a favorite weapon, right?  And a fighter can be disarmed, but under the core rules, a wizard can never lose his ability to cast a spell (no spell components, or disrupting).  However, a wizard WILL have a casting limit - by spending what amounts to spell points.  So the fighter loses combat power by losing his weapon, and the wizard loses it by casting too often.

What works better: Cast (a) Spell, or Cast (all) Spells?


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 27, 2013)

DMMike said:


> That's pretty much the case.  Which is why I can't give more skills to one "class" than another; pretty much everything is a skill, and they're not class-restricted.
> 
> Now I'm wondering: should a fighter have to spend skill points on three different skills (Fight/Unarmed, Melee, and Missile) to be a fighting master, while a wizard needs only one skill: Cast Spell?  Cast Spell was a catch-all, and each different spell was a skill.  But then I realized that would make wizards really good at only a couple of spells.
> 
> ...




Cast All, unless you want to make it Cast (Wizard), Cast (Cleric) to match Fight (Melee), Fight (Ranged).  Breaking out unarmed doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Fists (or studded gauntlets) are just another melee weapon.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 28, 2013)

Soooo...I just noticed this.  Skyrim, D&D 3, WoD, have something in common: 6-8 different skills per ability score.  Is that it?  Is that the magic number that makes skills worth investing in?  If so, I feel pretty good about 21 skills for my 3-ability system.

Nellisir: I'm going to draw out a spreadsheet with occupations and level advancements for min/maxed and well-balanced characters.  I'll be looking at the wizard's spell diversity and spell success to help me decide on Cast Spell or Cast Spells.
(If it helps the discussion - P&P wizards make a Cast Spell check when they cast a spell.  This check is the objective or DC for those defending against the spell's effects.  Note that the wizard uses his Metaphysical ability to cast spells, but the damage manifests against either Physical or Mental abilities and skills.  The defenders, if they fail to avoid, can then absorb some spell damage with physical or mental armor.)

Fight/Unarmed refers to the myriad "martial arts" that are taught - the ones without weapons.  Fighting with a weapon is different because you get range, much more muscle fatigue per attack, and the ability to do more damage.  Think of it like this: the guy with a knife in a fistfight is going to win.  Much like the guy with a gun in a knife fight is going to win.  (Thanks, Indy.)


----------



## PrometheanVigil (Feb 28, 2013)

Crafting, Investigation, Politicking, Fighting, Exploration, Stealth, Leadership, Tactics.

All of these are necessary categories for an RPG that accommodates for all kinds of players.

But the ones I consider most necessary?

Melee
Science
Persuasion
Stealth
Survival

You've got your fighting, you've got your crafting, you've got your politics, you've got your sneaking and you've got your dodging traps.

I like that.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 28, 2013)

PromVig: I think the 21-point list has these skills covered.  Investigation could be Detect and Persuade, Exploration is Detect and Movement, Leadership is Persuade, Tactics is Movement and Fight.  Knowledge-Scholarship (you mention Science) is a skill with Michaelangelo in mind: the lack of specialized knowledge in olden days meant you could be an expert in everything, if you were smart enough.

I think I can answer the Cast question from the perspective of multi-classing, which I came close to doing earlier.

A fighter-type has lots of points in Fight-Melee and Parry.  If he spends two in Cast Spell upon gaining a new level, he can now cast any number of low-level spells.  What seems more appropriate: he spends two in Cast Spell, and can cast one new spell at a novice level.

A wizard-type has lots of points in Cast Spell (fireball) and Concentration (for regenerating MP points).  If he spends two in Fight-Melee upon gaining a new level, he gains the ability to use any close-quarters weapon at a 2nd level ability.  This probably puts him a few levels below Gandalf in using that longsword he's been lugging around, but he'll probably prefer to spend those points in Cast Spell (fireball) so that he gets better at hitting distant and spread-out targets.

I think the fighter has way more to gain from taking Cast All than from taking Cast One.

If true, the problem becomes the wizard's: he can only cast one or two spells at the very peak of his casting ability.  Further, his best spells will be the easy ones he learned early on, and on which was therefore able to spend the most points.  Part of my solution is the spellbook perk: cast any spell you don't know as if you knew the spell, but without a skill bonus.  This is great for wizards who can put lots of spells in that spellbook without wasting skill points, but can only cast them at marginal ability.  The fighter (who hasn't taken much Metaphys or many wizard perks) can take the Spellbook perk too, which is the same as Cast All, except he won't be getting any bonuses to his spellcasting.  And the caster-damage feature of  spells will also prevent a lot of casting from the fighter: casters take Metaphysical damage when casting spells, which is an ability that the fighter won't have in large quantity.

But I digress...how does the caster cast new, high-powered spells at high level ability?  I'm thinking about a perk: Spell Upgrade.  Take a simpler spell you know, and put those skill points in a related higher-level spell.  The higher level spell still uses more Metaphysical (spell) points, so he won't be casting a lot of it, but by sacrificing a perk (at level-up), he'll be able to hit hard targets with it.  And the pre-upgrade spell is lost, unless he has a 0-point version of it in his spellbook.

Discuss?


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 28, 2013)

DMMike said:


> Fight/Unarmed refers to the myriad "martial arts" that are taught - the ones without weapons.  Fighting with a weapon is different because you get range, much more muscle fatigue per attack, and the ability to do more damage.  Think of it like this: the guy with a knife in a fistfight is going to win.  Much like the guy with a gun in a knife fight is going to win.  (Thanks, Indy.)



I get that, it's just more simulationist than I play.  It also adds another choice to the list.  (Also, from your description it's a sub-optimal choice, so you'd have to make it worthwhile...which would seem to mean equivalent to conventional melee.  And if you do that, what's the difference between an unarmed style and a weapon, particularly when you're abstracting combat skills?)


----------



## Randalthor (Mar 1, 2013)

My core skills for any (ANY!) adventuring character in any (ANY!) genre, not in any particular order:

Perception/Awareness*
Athletic/Movement
Combat
Interaction/Social
Survival
Lore/Knowledge 

Pretty-much everything else is fine-tuning and/or setting/genre specific (like computer skills, or Gnarlac Training).


*This one is key, and one I see slighted by many systems and many players. Not having an awareness of one's surroundings, especially with all the dangerous situations PCs always find themselves in, is just ensuring a quick death. (And more time taken creating a new character.)


----------



## GMMichael (Mar 1, 2013)

Nellisir: there IS the generic Fight skill option, which is the same as Base Attack Bonus in D&D.  Archers in the three-way system will be wishing they had the generic Fight when they run out of arrows, right?  That makes taking Fight-Missile a trade-off: you can attack your enemy from further away, and have time to hide or run away before he engages you.  But you'll run out of arrows eventually.  I took a cue from Skyrim on this judgement call, which has One-Handed, Two-Handed, and Archery skills.

Fight-Unarmed has some advantages over Fight-Melee: no need to buy weapons, never look like a threat, no chance to get disarmed (unless there's a dragon involved...).

Randalthor: P&P has specialized those skills a bit, but otherwise agrees with you.  Two questions:
1) Do you think Combat, unlike in D&D, should be broken into sub-skills?
2) If you could design your own system, how would you ideally handle Perception?


----------



## Mrdrasco (Mar 4, 2013)

Interesting discusion, have you checked out Savage Worlds. The basic skill list is good, although can be considered simple in some things. And the Knowledge skills broad in most aspects, a player we have took chemistry and Aracna in a victorian steam punk world. He's crafted knock out druggs and dynamite when he had time.


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 5, 2013)

I'm still reading through the thread, but I wanted to post my draft of a potential skill mechanic. I'm stealing from a lot of places, in particular Cook's suggestion of dividing up skills into levels of expertise to make many checks unnecessary or impossible. I also incorporated the yes/no and/but mechanic that I've seen floating around in many places.

Skills begin as *untrained*, and may progress to (in order) *trained, expert, master, or epic* training levels. At any particular level of training, a character will automatically succeed at any check below his or her level of training, and roll to make a check at his or her level of training. The character can also attempt a check at the next level of training, but with a disadvantage. A character will automatically fail a check at a training level that is two levels or more above his or her current training level. For example, an expert acrobat will automatically succeed any untrained or trained acrobatics check, and may roll for any expert or master acrobatics check (the latter at a disadvantage), but will automatically fail any epic acrobatics check.

Characters who have developed their training in a skill also have access to certain abilities which untrained characters cannot even attempt to do with a check. For example, a master acrobat can avoid being knocked prone.

When the DM calls for a skill check, players may suggest appropriate ability score bonuses to add to the roll. For example, to jump from one tree to another, one player might suggest adding the dexterity bonus while another might suggest adding strength bonus. The DM is the final arbiter of what bonuses apply to a given roll, and may allow multiple ability scores or none. If the check is opposed by another individual, that individual’s training determines the check level, and the the opposing individual’s modifier is applied as a penalty to the roll.

The success or failure of a check is determined as follows:
Natural 1 or modified <1: Failure. Optionally, additional negative consequences may apply.
Modified 1-5: Failure
Modified 6-10: Failure. Optionally, minor positive achievements may apply.
Modified 11-15: Success. Optionally, minor negative consequences may apply.
Modified 16-20: Success.
Natural 20 or modified >20: Success. Optionally, additional positive achievements may apply


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 5, 2013)

Randalthor said:


> My core skills for any (ANY!) adventuring character in any (ANY!) genre, not in any particular order:
> 
> Perception/Awareness*
> Athletic/Movement
> ...



Two points, neither of which are necessarily addressed at Randalthor. First, I see a big distinction between skills that require years of training to improve (such as knowledge or professional skills) and the short list of practical skills that most fantasy adventurers bring to bear, such as most of the ones in the quoted list. I have little interest in detailing the former: leave that up to the player. I can see disallowing subdividing knowledge skills too much, but crafts? Who am I to say that a silversmith has the same skills as a guy who mainly makes horseshoes? 

As an aside, I'm not sure where stealth/sneak/hide would fit on that list, but that's another essential one, and the counterpart to awareness/perception/search. 

Second, I prefer combat be handled separately than non-combat skills. It's a personal preference, but it's a pretty common choice, and for good reason. Failing a knowledge check will rarely get you killed, whiles failing a combat check will often get you killed. With that much at stake, it needs some extra attention. Stealth and awareness straddle this dividing line, and cause me great frustration just for that reason.

Unfinished post - had to go...


----------



## Randalthor (Mar 5, 2013)

DMMike said:


> Randalthor: P&P has specialized those skills a bit, but otherwise agrees with you.  Two questions:



I am assuming "P&P" means Powers & Perils - I haven't looked into that game.



> 1) Do you think Combat, unlike in D&D, should be broken into sub-skills?



You know, I bounce back and forth on that. When Dark Heresy first came out with it's Weapon Skill (Melee) and Ballistic Skill (Missile) as basic attributes I felt a bit wonky, but I got over it -  mostly. I still tend to prefer these to be skills, modified by natural attributes, and needing to be trained to increase.



> 2) If you could design your own system, how would you ideally handle Perception?



Ultimately, I feel perception is a trained skill, though like all skills it is backed by natural ability (attribute mods). Just like every incarnation of Sherlock Holmes has said, it takes years of dedicated study and training to be able to see the truth in what's around us. (Paraphrasing, of course.)

As Fergis mentioned, I missed a pretty important skill: stealth. Just like being able to accurately see what is around you is important for adventurers (in some ways I find it more important than combat skills - if you don't notice your enemy, how can you attack them or keep them from hitting you?), the ability to keep from being noticed is _almost_ equally important.

As a counter-point to Mr. Fergis's post though, I do believe that perception and athletics/movement skills need to be trained, otherwise all you would have to do to get on the Olypic Track & Field and/or Gymnastics Teams would be to get in shape. Having been on the gymnastics team and swimming team in high school (not good enough to letter though, drat it) I can tell you it takes a lot of training to get good at the skills needed to even compete, not to mention win. I can understand the desire to want to keep things simple and not deal with each and every skill and ability a character can possess, but for those skills that can be critical to survival I feel they need to be.


----------



## GMMichael (Mar 6, 2013)

Ferghis -
The skill system I'm working on seems to have the same effect as what you described above.  
Here's the link: http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/skills
I've introduced the Too Easy mechanic: if an action is too easy for a character, he automatically succeeds.  It's reinforced by the GM's difficulty roll: the GM chooses the difficulty of what a character is trying to do, and adds that to his d20 roll.  The player has to beat this roll.  Either the player or the GM can choose to take a result of 10, speeding up an automatic success.

Where you've named the skill levels, I have a more continuous progression (using skill points):
Untrained - 0 skill points
Trained - 1 skill point
Expert - 2 to 5 skill points
Master - 6 to 10 skill points
Epic - 11+ skill points
The "disadvantage" at making a higher level skill check is included in the Difficulty (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/rolls); the higher the difficulty, the higher you have to roll.
And when you attempt something that's too difficult for you, you'll have to roll a number higher than what's on your die.
For example, you're Trained in Deciphering.  You have a +1 from your skill point, and a +2 from your intelligence.  You can roll a maximum of 23 on a d20.  But you're attempting a Master skill level, at +10.  In my system, the GM can take 10 for a Difficulty Class of 20, or try to roll for a higher DC.  If the GM takes 10, the player needs to roll 18, 19, or 20 on his roll (15% odds).  If the GM rolls, the player needs to roll 8 higher than the GM (since he has +3, adding 8 will equal 11, or one greater than the GM's +10).  The player has 50/50 chances of rolling higher than the DM.  Odds of rolling 8 higher, though, also work out to about 15%.

Should skills reflect what you need experience for, as well as what you must study for?  Well, it sure beats role-playing those lengthy exams.  

Should life-or-death skills follow the same system (like attacking)?  Well, why can't anything be life-or-death?  You're about to get smashed by a giant, unless you can Jump-Skill your way across a chasm.  You're a hostage in a brutal kingdom - better hope your Smithing is up to snuff (when they demand you work for them).  Why can't attacking (I call it Fight) be less-than-lethal?  Fencing with the prince?  Use Attack for a snowball fight.  You could use Attack for a game of billiards, curling, or bowling too.

My current system is dividing stealth into two skills: Sneaking and Larceny.  I find that it helps to look at a skill from a class-perspective: would different classes be interested in different parts of this skill?  In Thievery's case, I say yes.  Divide it up.

Regarding the Olympic Track and Field team: I wouldn't call that trained and untrained.  Being in shape means you have a good strength score, not that you have Athletics training.  Plus, the dude who's in good shape (but doesn't have any skill points) still has a 5% chance to jump over the 12' high-jump bar.  1 in 20.  Even though the trained people have better odds.

But think about this: it's those cheesy '80s movies where the main-character jumps over a wall (trying to save his girlfriend), lands in a 100 meter dash, and beats the competition.  He rolled well.  Or used what I call a Hero Point.  Either way, it's better for the story for him to win, than to be the boring, untrained guy.


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 6, 2013)

Randalthor said:


> As a counter-point to Mr. Fergis's post though, I do believe that perception and athletics/movement skills need to be trained, otherwise all you would have to do to get on the Olypic Track & Field and/or Gymnastics Teams would be to get in shape. Having been on the gymnastics team and swimming team in high school (not good enough to letter though, drat it) I can tell you it takes a lot of training to get good at the skills needed to even compete, not to mention win. I can understand the desire to want to keep things simple and not deal with each and every skill and ability a character can possess, but for those skills that can be critical to survival I feel they need to be.



I may have misexpressed myself. I agree that things like perception and athletics should improve with training. 

What I was trying to say is that I don't think professional and knowledge skills should occupy the exact same game design space as those skills that can be trained while engaged as a full-time adventurer. Training those skills should take extensive time outside adventuring and appropriate resources, such as a highly trained mentor or an incredible library of rare books.


----------



## Randalthor (Mar 6, 2013)

Ferghis said:


> I may have misexpressed myself. I agree that things like perception and athletics should improve with training.
> 
> What I was trying to say is that I don't think professional and knowledge skills should occupy the exact same game design space as those skills that can be trained while engaged as a full-time adventurer. Training those skills should take extensive time outside adventuring and appropriate resources, such as a highly trained mentor or an incredible library of rare books.



Oh, I get it now. *Slaps forehead.* All you fancy, smancy talkers. 

I agree that there are many skills that need "outside of the adventure" training in order to increase, and I think that most "adventuring" skills would increase faster/better with that type of training, as well. Basically, I think that the best way to improve any skill/ability is through the combination of use and training, both help reinforce each other and plug the holes (so to speak) in the other "method."


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 7, 2013)

In a system where combat is independent of skills, and working within the framework I posted above (and within a game that might resemble D&D next), here's what I have put together so far. Professional skills are handled separately. Perception and Stealth training are difficult to gain access to. Characters who have developed their training in a skill also have access to certain abilities which characters of lesser (or no) training cannot even attempt to do with a check. 

•Athletics (Str or Dex)
•Deceit (bluff and pickpocket) (Dex or Cha)
•Social (Cha or Str) (replaces Diplomacy and Intimidate)
•Healing (Int)
•Insight (Wis)
•Mechanic (Int or Dex) for traps and locks
•Lore: Dungeoneering, Wilderness, Geohistory, Arcana, Spirit (Int)
•Perception (Wis) - cannot be trained by a trait (must be trained via class, background, race or feat).
•Stealth (Dex) - cannot be trained by a trait (must be trained via class, background, race or feat).


----------



## GMMichael (Mar 7, 2013)

Ferghis - I'm not seeing the point of pulling out intense-study skills.  Think about this: is it easier to get measurably better at swaying ambassadors or swimming with the sharks, or learning another volume of Reflections on the Court Perception of Counselor Influence during the Kingship of Emmanuel XVIXIVVXIXVIVXI?

And please join me on the dark side...where combat, spellcasting, and defending are skills!

Speaking of...anyone see a balance issue if a fighter has three core skills to cover (Fight-Unarmed, Melee, Missile), the thief has three core skills (Deceive, Larceny, Sneak), a priest has two (Repel Undead, Healer), and the wizard needs a skill for each spell (and maybe Concentration for replenishing magic (Metaphyiscal) points)?

My current skill list: http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/common-skills


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 7, 2013)

I could certainly see combat skills as skills, I just think it's a dangerous simplification if the skill resolution system is identical to, say, remembering the name of that old king.


----------



## GMMichael (Mar 8, 2013)

Not so dangerous, I hope:
The old king (undead or otherwise) doesn't have a say in whether you remember his name.
If he gets attacked though, he 1) gets to use his Parry (defense) skill to avoid damage, and if he takes damage, he 2) can reduce that damage by wearing armor (or using a perk).


----------



## khermit (Dec 12, 2015)

*Super Condensed*

I know this is an old thread but I recently came across it. The topic is one that I've spent many years thinking about. Here's my 2 cents - which ain't worth a lot these days.

I think most actions can be categorized as follows:

Melee
Marksmanship
Subterfuge
Survival
Communication

i'm very much inclined to break Melee and Marksmanship out into particular weapon-types or unarmed fighting styles. It's easy enough to do and it just makes sense to me. If it's a physical activity that is sneaky and requires some knowledge, I lump it into Subterfuge. I'm not inclined to break Subterfuge down into Locks, Traps, Pick-pocket, Sneaking, etc. Yep, it's the Thief Skill. Survival includes Tracking, Foraging, Navigation by land, First Aid, etc. Yep, it's the Ranger Skill.

I am inclined to break Communication out into the specific languages a character knows - duh. Beyond that, no. Communication would include Charisma, Leadership, Diplomacy, Influence, Intimidation, Interrogation, Negotiation, Haggling, Lying, etc.

Because I'm inclined to keep Subterfuge, Survival, and Communication very broad and vague, I'm also inclined to make their advancement more costly or slow in relation to specific weapon skills. Not using a particular system or real numbers here - just trying to illustrate - but if improving a particular weapons skill costs 10XP, i would charge 20XP to improve Subterfuge, Survival, or Communication. If I wanted to keep the costs the same, I might do something like the following:

Improving a weapon skill (+1 bonus) would cost 10XP and the skill-test would be resolved with a d20. Improving the Subterfuge, Survival, or Communication skill (+1 bonus) would cost 10XP and the skill-test would be resolved with d20 rolls and DCs multiplied by 2. If the player (or the DM) wants to break-out a particular skill from within Subterfuge, Survival, or Communication so it can be advanced more quickly, cheaply, effectively, or independently - that's fine too. That particular skill then costs 10XP to improve +1 and tests with a d20.


----------



## GMMichael (Dec 15, 2015)

khermit said:


> I know this is an old thread but I recently came across it. The topic is one that I've spent many years thinking about. Here's my 2 cents - which ain't worth a lot these days.
> 
> I think most actions can be categorized as follows:
> 
> ...



Nice necro, Khermit.  Blast from the past for me, anyway.  I'd like to mention that your skill list might contain options that will help members of classes to break out of their molds a bit.  There's not much point in having a melee skill if every fighter ends up taking melee, and no members of other classes bother to take it.  But if melee is a group of skills for, say, sword, spear and axe skills, then your fighters can diversify a bit.  (Or you can encourage your players to define what melee means to their characters...)

As I read the end of your post, I was hoping you'd go the Savage Worlds route and suggest using different dice as a way to improve skills, or show that some develop differently than others.  Or maybe throw in the AD&D d8+d12?

My skill list, as a sort of belated wrap-up to this thread, just got larger by one:
Deceive
Defend (concentration)
Defend (parry)
Defend (willpower)
Detect
Fight (melee)
Fight (missile)
Fight (unarmed)
Handler
Knowledge (lore)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (scholarship)
Larceny
Magic
Movement
Persuade
Profession (artist)
Profession (craftsman)
Profession (healer)
Profession (scientist)
Sneak


----------

