Buying related skill specialties at a discount.

[simonh]

The Skills chapter the section on Skill Specialties suggests that some skills can be substituted for others at half chance. In which case, would it be reasonable to allow such related skills to be bought up from the half chance level.

e.g. The example on page 47 suggests that Science (Astronomy) could be substituted for Science (Physics) or Science (Mathematics) at half chance. So if a character has Science (Astronomy) skill is 70% my effective base chance at those skills is 35%.

Would it be reasonable to allow a player that has bought up Science (Astronomy) to 70% to then buy up their related skills from the base level of 35% during character generation?

Personally, I think I'd allow that. It doesn't seem fair to disallow it because that creates a disincentive to buy up logically related skills.

I'd suggest being cautious about this. I wouldn't allow this for otherwise apparently related skills such as similar specialisations of the Research, Repair and Technical skills as these relationships are better handled by the discretionary 1/5th chance bonus.

Simon Hibbs

[rust]

Would it be reasonable to allow a player that has bought up Science (Astronomy) to 70% to then buy up their related skills from the base level of 35% during character generation?

I would hesitate to allow the use of related skills at half chance in all situations,

in my view this does not always make sense. For example, not every problem in

astronomy or physics can be solved with a good mathematics skill alone, often

more specific knowledge from the problem's field is required. Therefore I would

also hesitate to allow a player to use a related skill's half chance as the base for

learning a skill, because the basic knowledge even of closely related skills is not

really identical. Just as in the real world, where someone who has studied mathe-

matics will hardly get a second degree in astronomy or physics in half the time.

[simonh]

I would hesitate to allow the use of related skills at half chance in all situations,

in my view this does not always make sense. For example, not every problem in

astronomy or physics can be solved with a good mathematics skill alone, often

more specific knowledge from the problem's field is required.

That's reasonable on the face of it, but the other hand whether or not I allow it any any particular situation is realy just an arbitrary decission. Resolving questions such as "Does the character's particular knowledge help them solve this specific problem right now" is one of the reasons we roll dice. In other words the rules imply that whether or not the characetr's sepcific Mathematics knowledge will help with a particular problem in Astronomy is 50/50 and I've no problem with the dice deciding that for me, so I'm incluned to stick with the half chance rule.

Given that, it makes sense to allow buying up the related skill from that half chance base.

Therefore I would

also hesitate to allow a player to use a related skill's half chance as the base for

learning a skill, because the basic knowledge even of closely related skills is not

really identical.

The fact that the basic knowledge isn't identical is IMHO why you get half chance and not full chance.

Just as in the real world, where someone who has studied mathe-

matics will hardly get a second degree in astronomy or physics in half the time.

But they could well get it in significantly less time. I can certainly believe they might be able to compete the second degree in say 2 years instead of 3.

Let's take the example of maths and computing. It's hard to imagine any maths student not taking at least some computing modules as part of their course, similarly when I was a computing student there were several mandatory maths modules and several more advanced optional ones. Someone with a maths degree would get credit for the computing modules they had completed as part of the maths course, and would also get credits for the maths modules they had already completed that were equivalent to the maths part of the computing curriculum.

These synergies are reflected in the rules, and I see no problem allowing them to have an effect in character generation. I have to confess though that I tend to err on the side of generosity to the players in character generation. I like to give them tough challenges in play, so it seems fair to give them decent characters with which to tackle those challenges.

Simon Hibbs

Edited December 31, 2010 by simonh

[rust]

I see your point, but I tend to be a bit more strict when it comes to skills.

That said, I always use the Complementary Skills option (BRP p. 50), and in all

but modern and science fiction settings I bundle the natural sciences into one

single skill "Natural Philosophy" (or "Quadrivium" for medieval settings) without

any specialization of skills.

[Mugen]

As for myself, I would treat the problem in a slightly different way. I have very bad memories of "Complementary skill"-like rules.

I would use a number of broad skills such as Athletics, Magic, Melee, Stealth, Science and so on, along with "specializations".

For instance, a swordsman might have a Melee skill of 37%, a Sword specialization of +45% and a Dagger specialization of +15%, for a total of 82% when using a sword in melee and 52% with a dagger.

Of course, some actions would require a minimum level in a specialization. A Science roll would allow you to know the basics of nuclear physics, but a high specialization level would be necessary to design a nuclear plant.

[simonh]

Ringworld had a system like that. You could buy up the base skill to a maximum based on the sum of two stats, and beyond that you had to buy up the more specialised sub-skills.

The problem was that there were loads of skills, many of them with many useful specialisations. To a large extent, this was probably motivated by the fact that Ringworld characters could be hundreds of years old, with thousands of skill points so the skills system was designed to soak up skill points like a sponge.

Still, the basic idea was sound.

Simon Hibbs

[HierophantX]

In the interest of full-disclosure I'm running a version of RQ, but I think my method works.

If it's a situation where my player wants to use a related skill to solve a problem and I rule that it works, then so be it, roll at half. (or better if it's a closely related problem). We've done that in Cthulhu as well, subbing History and Anthropology or Archaeology, Astronomy with Navigation, etc.

If the success was dramatically effective or a critical success then the player automatically opens the skill. Otherwise they can open it at the cost of an improvement roll at base without the time required to study (assuming it was just successful). I think that reflects the synergies that were mentioned and rewards outside of the box thinking by players.

[simonh]

>In the interest of full-disclosure I'm running a version of RQ, but I think my method works.

It sounds like a good system. My problem with systems like that is that it strongly discourages players who want to have characters who have good skills in several related skills from doing that at character generation time.

Say you want a hard science character with good skills in Science: Physics and Astronomy. You have decided on a budget of 125% for these skills. The maximum you can raise any one skill to is 75%, so you raise Physics to 75%, then raise Astronomy to 50% (ignoring the base 1%).

You know that the GM will often let you substitute one of these skills for others though. In many situations you might well be able to roll for Astronomy tasks at 38% for free. What do you do? If you can later develop an Astronomy skill from a base of 38% for free using a skill check, or as a result of a critical success, thats another strong disincentive to spend any skill points on related skills during character generation.

So I fully sympathise with the sentiment behind that rule, but without balancing options during character generation the result could be to distort the player's options when creating a character.

Simon Hibbs

[vagabond]

>In the interest of full-disclosure I'm running a version of RQ, but I think my method works.

It sounds like a good system. My problem with systems like that is that it strongly discourages players who want to have characters who have good skills in several related skills from doing that at character generation time.

Say you want a hard science character with good skills in Science: Physics and Astronomy. You have decided on a budget of 125% for these skills. The maximum you can raise any one skill to is 75%, so you raise Physics to 75%, then raise Astronomy to 50% (ignoring the base 1%).

You know that the GM will often let you substitute one of these skills for others though. In many situations you might well be able to roll for Astronomy tasks at 38% for free. What do you do? If you can later develop an Astronomy skill from a base of 38% for free using a skill check, or as a result of a critical success, thats another strong disincentive to spend any skill points on related skills during character generation.

So I fully sympathise with the sentiment behind that rule, but without balancing options during character generation the result could be to distort the player's options when creating a character.

Simon Hibbs

I am using a modified version of Ringworld's root skills, various BRP iterations of base skill chances, and the old TSR Conan's skill groups in my BRP Jorune port. Basically, the base skills start at a value based upon a stat, pair of stats, average of stats, or similar. Then, the individual specialties are increased beyond that to show specific training or interests. All "untrained" specialties in the same "group" use the base skill chance until trained, or if noted as "advanced" skills which must be trained and start at 00 due to their complex nature. As a trained skill improves by a certain value, the base skill also increases (I am not sure if I want to do a 10:1 ratio or not). So, for example, Melee Combat has a base of STR+DEX (say, a value of 30), and the player chooses broadsword to specialize in and raises it to +45%. The total skill when using the broadsword is 75%. When the player raises his broadsword up to +55%, he gains +1% to the base Melee Combat skill (now 31), for a total chance of 86% skill.

Just some thoughts, and not finalized yet ...

[sdavies2720]

...As a trained skill improves by a certain value, the base skill also increases (I am not sure if I want to do a 10:1 ratio or not). So, for example, Melee Combat has a base of STR+DEX (say, a value of 30), and the player chooses broadsword to specialize in and raises it to +45%. The total skill when using the broadsword is 75%. When the player raises his broadsword up to +55%, he gains +1% to the base Melee Combat skill (now 31), for a total chance of 86% skill...

In my homegrown rules I used a system something like that. I did a 10:1 ratio, with the base increasing whenever a specialty crossed a 10% line (10%, 20%, 30%). That was to remove one bit of memory and bookkeeping.

I found the system worked and the players liked it. But it was a lot of work when processing checks. What helped a lot was a custom character sheet that had the categories and Base % + Advancement % = Bonus %. Then each specialty had the same: Base % + Category bonus % = Skill %. That way when a category bonus increased, it was easy to make the change down the line of specialties. Also, I let players roll advancement against the base skill rather than skill + category bonus, so it was good to have that separation.

Steve