j0nnyfive

Guys, I've been doing some homework on the term 'athletics', and I think I may have discovered a large part of my problem! What I didn't realize was that the word 'athletics' is used differently in the U.S. than in the U.K. Let me illustrate my point. U.K. athletics = running, jumping, throwing, & walking. This approximates the ancient Olympics who also used a word much like "athletics", so a historical feel is preserved. U.S. athletics = American football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, tennis, swimming, track & field, volleyball, rugby, lacrosse, wrestling, boxing, golf, archery, horseback riding, olympic lifting, powerlifting, strongman competition, water skiing, mixed martial arts, arm wrestling, gymnastics, ice skating, skateboarding, hot dog eating (maybe), cheer-leading, etc. etc. etc. etc. forever and ever. Since the term is more general in the U.S., it is most associated with one's childhood memories of their schools' "athletic program" which probably consisted of the most popular American sports of "Football, baseball, and basketball." so a more modern feel is associated with the term. Creating a skill called "athletics" and then placing 'running, jumping, and throwing' takes advantage of background knowledge of someone from the U.K., and then appending 'climbing' spices things up a little and makes you think outside the box. From an American perspective, the term "athletics" feels not only modern, but extremely nebulous. It's like saying "my character can do some physical stuff involving competitions." Anyway, NOW that I understand this (correct me if I'm wrong, please), it's a bit easier for me to swallow the pill. I still think it shouldn't be used, but I won't have a stroke now. lol I was actually researching why having a British upbringing made Pete lose his mind, but then I ran across this bit of useful trivia.

Okay, good discussion guys! I feel the need to clarify my original issue, as I feel I didn't make myself as clear as I should have. First of all, my over-arching point that I was trying to make was about general design. I was using RuneQuest as an example. But my point isn't limited to RuneQuest. I'm simply using it because it illustrates my point. In fact, I feel that both RuneQuest and OpenQuest are VERY well designed games! I don't want to be misunderstood or any of this blown out of proportion. I only take issue with a small thing that I have only seen other people hint at without fully articulating... something which seems to be dropping between the cracks of all the bloated "Narrativist/simulationist/gamist" over-simplified 3-way model speech. I just wanted to try to start some explicit discussion on this particular topic, as I've never seen it really focused on before. My point isn't to criticize you guys as designers (you guys are very excellent at design in my book!). But, there are some aspects of general game design that I feel need to be looked at. I'm simply one person raising my hand and saying "look at me guys! I'm not even an RPG player, but even 'I' notice these things!!" I never played D&D growing up, but I had a friend who did, and I owned a book and we talked about it. I wasn't into it enough at the time to play, and I didn't have time anyway. Anyway... onward. My broad game design issue is this: BRP uses a skill system that is used not only for humanoid creatures with 2 legs and 2 arms, but for all the other little creatures and critters of mythology as well. Some of these creatures are things like dragons, horses, gorgons, slimes, slugs, spiders, gaseous clouds, etc. The term "athletics" itself describes people who are competing in physical games (with emphasis on people and games). Maybe I simply misunderstood that the usage of "athletics" was a common word that described the abilities of ALL creatures including mythological ones. The term feels very.... human-centric(?)... to ME. When describing people, at least in the States, we may describe them as "athletic", but usually only if they play a sport of some kind. Sometimes, we may describe a person as athletic even if they don't compete but we are implying that they would be good at sports if they tried. But rarely would we describe an animal as athletic. It just isn't the way we use common language. If we say "my cat is athletic", it would get a little laugh and "awwwwwww that's cute!" Because it is an anthropomorphizing of the animal for comic relief. It's a use of the language. So, when I see "dragon: athletics", it is an anthropomorphizing of the dragon in a funny way. I picture the dragon putting on his toga (or taking it off reowwrr), and walking up to the starting line next to a bunch of people about to run a race. Whoever said above that RPG design has developed it's own sub language.. BINGO!! DING DING DING!! I believe you got it! The way RPG players have come to use the term "athletics" isn't really the way the word is commonly used. Can you understand my cognitive dissonance? Now, I THOUGHT that "The Laundry" had done the same, but when I read their skill description, the main part of it says: "The Athletics skill covers performance of a team or solo sport, complete with knowledge of the rules and tactics for winning. Some sports are better covered by other skills, such as boxing (Brawl), equestrian (Ride), the long jump (Jump), swimming (Swim) and so forth." This is how I view a skill called "athletics". Now, another thought I had on this is that the game seems to want to focus less on physical skills and more on the more cognitive / emotional skills. I understand this, but keep in mind, this is a sort of human-centric view as well. Many creatures (monsters are people too) can't speak or think like we can. To the horse, RUNNING may be something it takes pride in, but climbing a sheer wall or throwing an object accurately may be out of it's capabilities. CLIMBING may be the skill that describes the slug-like creature, but jumping may not be it's forte. My point is that de-emphasizing the physical TOO much may be robbing the non-thinking creatures of some crunch description. Yes, for people, we prefer to say "athletic" and be done with it, but when talking about animals, many animal lovers take pride in describing their pet's ability to JUMP. Or "look at my cat CLIMB!" Also, it makes the 'scary' creatures more scary. Dragon: climb 95% leap 110% So, that's another thing... Another thing that bothers me about it, is that the selection of sub-skills under the athletics label seems arbitrary. Why not swimming, endurance, brawn, acrobatics, or ride? Did they not ride as a sport, historically? (Again, we're focusing on what 'people' do for 'sport'). And the more we say "that's not historical", the more it drives home my point of being people-focused. Also, there were so many events considered "athletics" throughout history that the game design decision of what sub-skills get included can only be arbitrary. Or, maybe not arbitrary from a game mechanics perspective... which is my point. The design 'style' that I subjectively do not prefer is NOT the shaving down of crunchy bits to make the game easier to play. That isn't my point. My point is that I'm seeing game design get carried away with LANGUAGE. There has been this RPG intra-game lingo that has been developing, and it's breaking my immersion in my fantasy world. Words like "bennies, tank, aggro, 'athletics', caster, trappings, D&D 4e 'everything is a power'" etc. This lingo keeps growing and growing and turning fantasy escapes inside out for my enjoyment. The "meta" aspects of game seem to be taking front stage more and more, sometimes at the expense of using language that doesn't 'fit' the inner world the game describes. This is my "deeper" complaint about modern RPG design, in general. I came to BRP to escape this trend. I'm just passionate about it, so I will use humor or whatever to emphasize my point (sorry if it offended anyone). So basically, to summarize: The skill named "athletics" is used in multiple RPGs to cover some basic physical skills. My 2 problems with this are: 1. I feel the word doesn't fit the description of non-humanoid creatures/monsters/animals. And, 2. There isn't agreement on what physical skills to include under the umbrella, which confuses dummies like me. For RQ in particular, it feels strange to me to read it because of how detail-oriented the rest of the game feels to me. But whatever, I'll live. Oh! And 3. I feel that the physical abilities in an RPG are important and add further distinctness to a character. Leaping, climbing, swimming, throwing... and things of this nature ARE basic skills, but how many people in real life dream of being an expert in one of these? How many of you can dunk a basketball? Climb high and steep mountain cliffs? Throw a perfect curve ball, or win at darts every time? And, I feel it adds more distinctness to animals and other creatures of legend. I realize that I may not have made my point very clear in all that mess above.. Sorry for the wall of text. And, I know this all seems a bit "silly" or extreme over just one word. I'm just having a hard time explaining myself. Maybe it's the lack of my British upbringing. lol Sorry... I had to go there... too funny! Here: (Edit: I removed a paragraph from this post. Redundant, unfocused, too snarky of me. I apologize for my "rough edges". It's a personality thing.)

I really doubt your mythology classes described dragons has athletes. Come on, now! I just Googled "athletics definition" for further clarification. ath·let·ics aTHˈletiks/ noun noun: athletics 1. physical sports and games of any kind. Brit. the sport of competing in track and field events, including running races and various competitions in jumping and throwing. "athletics championships" synonyms: sports, sporting events, games, races; track and field events, track; contests; working out, exercising The new "Dragon" Yeah, baby! Thanks for your input, guys! I'm trying to "see" it. Squinting... really... hard! It's opinions vs opinions.... Fight On! lol Thanks, guys! Edit: I don't REALLY mean "fight". I just like finding fun places to insert the old D&D 0e quote!

lol Funny, guys! Yeah, I understand the "why" and "what fer" of using an umbrella term to encapsulate other terms to prevent skill creep. I have two separate points that I want to re-iterate. 1. Running, jumping, and climbing are three very different things. 2. The term athletics sounds funny when describing a mythical "awe-inspiring" creature. When's the last time you saw a chimera at a sporting event eating a hotdog? Does the term "work"? Yes, like a patch. A quick fix. It gets the job done. It's "okaaayyy." Why not use a word other than something that means competitor, as it was put? How about the term "physical" or something like that. Or just leave jumping and climbing separate since they don't relate to each other. People who are good at singing also tend to be good at musical instruments, dancing, and socializing. How about "entertain" or "social stuff"? A skill called skill? lol

MatteoN, wow! Your English is great! A lot of times, I can tell when a person isn't naturally English, but I can't tell with you! Thanks for your comments guys!

Yeah, I'm bugged too much by presentation of things. Word choice can really throw me. I'm too sensitive to this kind of stuff. My last rant was about skill ratings, but now I've got that lined out nicely. But this is something I think many game designers are starting to do more and more. This is just my opinion (I know), but you do NOT want to lump together the basic physical competencies such as jumping or climbing. You lose too much descriptive power I think. Dragons: climb 95%. To me, that sounds "scarier" than Dragons: athletics 95%. There just seems to be a trend of using "whatever" language "works" for the sake of convenience. Savage Worlds (a good set of rules, but the language!!): smarts. trappings. bennies. Sounds like a card game at an old southern baptist church or something. lol But you're supposed to use this game for Interface Zero? Wow. genre clash. Just my opinion, and etc.

The Reebok comment was for humor. Sorry. The main point is that when I think "athletics" I think of sporting competitions, or the preparation of sporting competitions. Doesn't "have" to be. But, I'm not sure why go to such lengths to be detailed in many areas (especially combat), and draw laser-like distinctions between hit locations and things like strength and brawn and 61% vs 60% skills... and then lump climbing, jumping, and running together using a word that conjures up thoughts of people lacing up their Reeboks and going for a run on the track. lol Other than this, it looks like a pretty charming game. (I checked out that link, they were still talking about sports, even though I acknowledge you don't have to be playing a sport to be considered athletic. According to my book, dragons are only 80% athletic so one may still be able to beat them in the discus) I'm a little delirious right now... sorry... lol It's just something that really jumps out at me since I have a background in physical training. I think they should go ahead and split athletics back out on their next go around. That's... just me. Back to trying to sleep... Edit: I'm not just picking on RQ. I'm looking at you to, OQ. Got my eye on ya... all you athletic monsters. Ghouls... I bet they can run a mean mile.

It's late, I'm tired. This may be a silly thing (especially since I have yet to play these games)... I'm seeing what looks like a trend that I don't like and I want to start an official petition to stop it. And, that is, the use of the term "athletics" as a skill in a FANTASY-based game. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop it people. lol For example, and I won't give the name of the game, some game that rhymes with Shroomquest decided it would be funny to lump "jumping, climbing, swimming, and throwing" all together under "athletics" while simultaneously making it a point to be so detailed as to require it's players to use hit points per location. What an odd combination. Do you guys have any idea how different climbing is from swimming? There are some amazing swimmers that can barely waddle on land. Some Olympic lifters can jump pretty high, but they aren't the best runners (putting it mildly), especially "over any distance". Also, do you know how hard it is for me to get the picture of a Gorgon wearing Reeboks out of my head? Gorgons are NOT.... athletic. They can swim maybe, and slither quickly... I dunno. And "brawn" when you already have a strength attribute? If someone can't apply their strength, then how would you know they were "strong?" But I digress. Such detailed distinctions... STR vs "brawn", hit locations.... "athletics". lol Lace up those Nike Air's Mr dragon and gimme 50!! Sounds petty, I know, but "athletics" is like the first skill I read under a lot of these monsters' descriptions. Starts with an 'a' I guess. And what's the deal with making skills not end in a '0' or '5' about? Okay, I'll shut up now. Goodnight. (If anything about this is inaccurate, just gimme the ol' "what fer". I'm half-way silly... no, but seriously!) EDIT: WHOOPS!! Swimming IS separate! My bad. lol Okay, but I still think the rest need to be broken out and the term "athletics" not used cuz it sounds funny on monsters. Kinda immersion breaking for me. I'm having trouble getting my 'mersion on.

Awesome. Thanks guys!

Okay, my thinking on this has been refined a bit more now... *ahem* A skill rating is a percentage of the "amount of mastery" one possesses. From this rating can be derived some useful game information such as the odds of success vs normal, easy, & hard challenges, critical successes & failures, as well as when to apply any special rules or bonuses that relate to the given skill. The fact that a 50% skill has a 50% chance of success is simply a convenient feature of the game system. But one should not confuse percent of AMOUNT with percent of CHANCE. (e.g. A skill of 120% AMOUNT still only has about a 95% CHANCE of succeeding.) Tada!! No? No? Ehhhh?

I can see, now, how it would not represent any sort of limit, but I'm not sure how it wouldn't be used to compare one human to another. If we assume that a GM at least tries to somewhat standardize "normal uses", "stressful", and "demanding circumstances", would this not make the skill rating a useful tool for comparison? Or does "normal use/stressful/demanding" change in relation to who's using the skill? Not sure I follow... Thanks for your continued input, guys!

Yeah, it would probably look a little nicer on paper to not have a bunch of percent signs everywhere too. Who knows? Maybe the percents give the game more grit.

I like that way of looking at it Atgxtg! Did I say your name right? Yeah, the way I think about it is that "100%" (as a rating) represents someone who can reliably pass a standard challenge at least 99/100 times (accounting for possible fumble). But to go past 100% is understandable in this context. Just because you can pass a standard challenge 99/100 times doesn't mean you're finished improving right? Even if you can't ever succeed more than 99/100 times, you could improve qualitatively somehow (maybe explains how the "crit" keeps increasing). So, this makes sense to me "as a rating." My problem was because my brain was equating "as a rating" with "as a probability". Can't do that. Probabilities, as far as I know, cannot go past 100%. Practically anyway. I'm not sure how clear the written rules are on this in the different books. I just read the quickstart. "Skills are rated as a skill chance, or the percentage chance a character attempting the skill has of succeeding, a value somewhere between 0% (no chance whatsoever) to 100+%, meaning it will always succeed." - Pg. 9. My brain was going "Hey, if this is a probability, how can it go past 100%?" But, looking at it "as a rating" above 99%, and "as a probability" below 100%, clears it up for me. Or, alternatively, as both a rating AND a probability up to 99%, beyond which simply becomes a rating describing the more qualitative aspects of performance. Good points! I like this discussion! The more I blab about it, the clearer it keeps getting.

Yeah, I can see why they might have a problem, but I think if you wrangle with it mentally just a lil' bit, it makes sense. I think it's just one of those weird things in life where some people just click with it immediately, and others get cross-eyed for whatever reason. It makes sense to me now thanks to you guys' input.

Hey Simon! BRP is quickly becoming my favorite system to read. I'm seeing the elegance now. Okay, just to further clarify my thoughts on skills: A skill rating actually represents two distinct things with one number: 1. A percentage rating for comparison (logically can surpass 100%) 2. A percentage of probability (logically can not surpass 100% AFAIK) When the GM alters the number due to difficulty, she is altering the probability, NOT the rating. (So at 1/2 difficulty, you're rated at 80%, but only have 40% chance.) Aha! I was conflating these two ideas, giving me a headache. It's been a few years since math class. Cognitive dissonance gone! I'm really liking this system, but I do feel the need to say that reports of its intuitiveness have been (only somewhat) exaggerated. lol!