Single Skill List vs. Basic / Advanced Lists

[Greg]

tl;dr - Which do you prefer and why: A single list of skills or two lists designated as Basic and Advanced?

 

One of the knocks on BRP is the long skill list. While I don't find it an issue after 30+ years of playing RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu, I get why newcomers might be overwhelmed. I also understand that such a wide array also might lead to developing a skill that never sees use.

 

One way to address this is to create the categories of "Basic / Standard" and "Advanced / Expert" lists. My understanding of BRP history is that Mongoose's RuneQuest I was the first to do this, followed by its descendants. Most recently, Chaosium's own Rivers of London and Fria Ligan's Dragonbane take such a design approach.

 

So, my question is this: is there a reason NOT to take the two lists approach in design? Additionally, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the full list?

[Ravenheart87]

It has been there right from the beginning in RuneQuest, though it wasn't called like that: a 00% percent base chance is essentially the same as a skill being "advanced/expert".

[Sam E.]

I prefer a single skill list.  It seems easier for the people I've introduced to various BRP / d100 games.  It also has an old-school aesthetic appeal that I prefer.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Greg said:

So, my question is this: is there a reason NOT to take the two lists approach in design? Additionally, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the full list?

Yes, there are reasons not to take the two list approach. 

There is an old saying which applies here: "A man with one watch always knows what time it is, while a man with two watches is never quite sure."

• .If you have one skill list (short or long) and one character sheet with the skills listed  then everybody who plays the game all use the same list and there is no chance of a player in a gaming group using the wrong list during chargen or play, and no need to adapt any adventures or character write ups for any alternate skill lists (i.e. what happens when a character is a botanist with Botany 60%,  but Botany isn't on the other skill list). So having two lists means GMs will need to work to avoid confusion with their players, and authors will need to cover all options.
• Two skill lists might also require multiple descriptions of some skills if skills cover a broader area in one list than another- for example Althetics skill might cover running and swimming on one list, but on another list Running and Swimming could be their own skills).
• In addition two lists takes up more pages./space in the game which could have been used for something else.
• Another reason might be if there is another way to handle skills that an designer might consider better, such as having a few broad skills with skill specializations instead of lots of narrow focus skills. 
• Another reason might be the needs of the setting. For instance in a campaign where the PCs are supposed to be highly competent and skilled in many areas (Star Trek, James Bond) might only need a short skill list of broad skills and a longer list of narrow focus might not work or require significant changes to chargen to do so (For example, if characters need fives times as many skills when using the second skill list, then they will need five times the number of skill points in chargen, plus probably a way to discourage or just prevent players  from using those extra points to max out some especially useful skills.)

 

I'm not saying that a game shouldn't have two lists, just pointing out that there are some reasons not to take the two lists approach, and in the end it comes down to the needs of the game and preferences of the designers.

BTW, in the case of most BRP games the character sheet can go a long way to helping. Most players seem fine with even a hundred skils, if they are all listed on the character sheet, and easy to find and use in play.

 

 

 

[DreadDomain]

I came to say this:

2 hours ago, Ravenheart87 said:

It has been there right from the beginning in RuneQuest, though it wasn't called like that: a 00% percent base chance is essentially the same as a skill being "advanced/expert".

And this:

2 hours ago, TheophilusCarter said:

I prefer a single skill list.  It seems easier for the people I've introduced to various BRP / d100 games.  It also has an old-school aesthetic appeal that I prefer.

And would add that I prefer when they are bundled in skill categories (communication, knowledge, etc.) because it makes zooming in the right skills much quicker in my experience.

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

And would add that I prefer when they are bundled in skill categories (communication, knowledge, etc.) because it makes zooming in the right skills much quicker in my experience.

I'll second that. It far easier to play when skills like Scan and Listen are grouped together under Perception Skills, than having to go through the whole skill list to find them. Plus  I like skill category modifiers, which really make the differences in attributes meaningful. Especially, when they apply to improvement rolls as in RQ3.

[DreadDomain]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Plus  I like skill category modifiers, which really make the differences in attributes meaningful. Especially, when they apply to improvement rolls as in RQ3.

Yes, that too!

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Yes, that too!

I think it might be the RQ3 rule I miss the most in BRP. It's easy to port over though. It's sort of a reverse Catch-22 situation. If there is a rule from a Chaosium product that you know of and like that didn't make it into BRP then you can port it over, and anything you haven't seen you don't miss. 

[Greg]

19 hours ago, Ravenheart87 said:

It has been there right from the beginning in RuneQuest, though it wasn't called like that: a 00% percent base chance is essentially the same as a skill being "advanced/expert".

Great point! I missed that perspective.

17 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

• If you have one skill list (short or long) and one character sheet with the skills listed  then everybody who plays the game all use the same list and there is no chance of a player in a gaming group using the wrong list during chargen or play, and no need to adapt any adventures or character write ups for any alternate skill lists (i.e. what happens when a character is a botanist with Botany 60%,  but Botany isn't on the other skill list). So having two lists means GMs will need to work to avoid confusion with their players, and authors will need to cover all options.

I think you may have misunderstood me - I didn't mean two totally separate lists, but one basic list with common skills, and another list (in the ruleset) from which a character may choose during chargen and fill in on the character sheet. So, for example, all characters would have access to Natural World, but the botanist would have access to Science(Botany).

To another point you made, there are many times I have read a scenario and an NPC has a skill not included in the ruleset's "official" skills list.

16 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

And would add that I prefer when they are bundled in skill categories (communication, knowledge, etc.) because it makes zooming in the right skills much quicker in my experience.

I have found that confuses players. I like to use category modifiers also, but an alphabetical list of all skills has been easiest for folks around my table.

[Atgxtg]

35 minutes ago, Greg said:

I think you may have misunderstood me

Possibly...

35 minutes ago, Greg said:

- I didn't mean two totally separate lists, but one basic list with common skills, and another list (in the ruleset) from which a character may choose during chargen and fill in on the character sheet. So, for example, all characters would have access to Natural World, but the botanist would have access to Science(Botany).

 I thought you meant that id you used the shoerter skill list that skills would be more broadly defined and if you used the longer list then skills would be more narrowly defined. A few RPGs have done something like the latter, or even introduced new skills that cover ground that used to be covered under an existing skill, and it is usually a bit of a pain.  

 

If on the other hand you mean that there are skills that exist but aren't readily avialble or promoted, then I don't really see the point of two lists. It just means you have to keep track of two lists instead on just one. Again I'll raise the character sheet. In most stand alone BRP games, 95% or so of the skills in the game are listed on the character sheet, and players only have to write in particular fields of expertise [i.e. Science (Biochemistry) or Science (Astrophysics). So they don't need to write in a lot of stuff. 

35 minutes ago, Greg said:

To another point you made, there are many times I have read a scenario and an NPC has a skill not included in the ruleset's "official" skills list.

Me too. Weather or not that bothers me depends on how relavant said skill is to the character/adventure, and  if the write up is supposed to be a full sheet or just a list of significant skills. For instance, if First Aid skill isn't listed in the stat block for the NPC Paperboy on the street corner, I don't mind, if it isn't listed under the statblock for the NPC Paramedic, I get peeved. 

[Greg]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

If on the other hand you mean that there are skills that exist but aren't readily avialble or promoted, then I don't really see the point of two lists. It just means you have to keep track of two lists instead on just one. Again I'll raise the character sheet. In most stand alone BRP games, 95% or so of the skills in the game are listed on the character sheet, and players only have to write in particular fields of expertise [i.e. Science (Biochemistry) or Science (Astrophysics). So they don't need to write in a lot of stuff. 

Rivers of London provides and example of what I am talking about.

These are the lists:

And they are represented on the Character Sheet thus:

 

I just find this so elegant, and am soliciting feedback to learn if there are any significant drawbacks other folks have experienced.

 

[SDLeary]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

 I thought you meant that id you used the shoerter skill list that skills would be more broadly defined and if you used the longer list then skills would be more narrowly defined. A few RPGs have done something like the latter, or even introduced new skills that cover ground that used to be covered under an existing skill, and it is usually a bit of a pain.  

 

Common / Expert or Common / Advanced... as in Legend or Mythras, and now Rivers of London.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, Greg said:

Rivers of London provides and example of what I am talking about.

These are the lists:

Ah, okay, now I get it.

 

6 hours ago, Greg said:

I just find this so elegant, and am soliciting feedback to learn if there are any significant drawbacks other folks have experienced.

 

I'd say some drawbacks are:

• I think that the "Common Skills" list  is a bit subjective, and would have to vary based on character background/setting. For instance, Drive might be replaced with Ride in some places depending on where and when the character comes from. I also have doubts as to research being a common skill, it's not like people are born with understanding of the Dewey decimal system, yet can;t even do a web search on google (Computer is an expert skill). And why is navigate a common skill? You would kinda need to know what the geography was like, how to determine which was is North, and such to know how to navigate. It's not like you could drop a Londoner into the Amazon rainforest and they'd know how to navigate out.
• The expert skills sort of artificially limits character more so that they probably would be in real life. For instance, everyone knows how to drive  (Common Skill) but not pilot a small boat (most drivers should be able to figure it out, since the controls aren't all that much different), or why no one can do basic math because there is no common skill for basic arithmetic, know anything about history, or that murder is a crime, that someone without survival skill wouldn't know enough to come in from out of the rain, to build a fire when it's cold out, or someone without medicine not being able to wrap up a wound. 
• At least with base chances they hand some chance of doing basic tasks in various fields. I think if there was some sort of general knowledge skill that players could roll against when performing common tasks covered under uncommon skills it would help. That's kinda what the various Lore skills and Idea roll did for RQ. 
• Attributes don't have any effect on skill value they way they do when you use skill categories. For instance someone with INT8 and someone with INT 18 would both have the same Science skill%, someone with poor STR and DEX scores the same Athletics skill% as someone with high STR and DEX scores, etc. 
• You have to write in the name every skill a character has that isn't a common skill.
• You need to make more room if/when a character every knows more than 9 expert skills.
• You need to work up the formula for each skill, as opposed to a base chance.
• It also limits the characters in terms of what they can do. There is really no chance that some one could get lucky a pick a lock, or pilot a boat which can be frustrating for the players, and it requires the GM to be a bit more careful designing or selecting adventures, to avoid requiring a specific skill which the players lack. 

 

Now those might be significant drawbacks to some people but not drawbacks at all to others. Again, I'd say it it probably isn't if every BRP like game moving forward should use a Common/Expert skill lists or not, but instead it depends the type of campaign being run, the setting, and what the expectations are, as that will ultimately determine just what skills are going to be the most useful and what skills the players will naturally gravitate towards. 

 

   Personally I prefer skill categorizes, and having most of the skills on the character sheet to help in both chargen and to speed up play, and even favor treating the skill categories as a sort of root skill with a base percentage that individual skills break away from, something like:

Perception 20%

• Listen 35%
• Spot 50%

but that's just me and if you like Common/Expert approach go for it.

[Mugen]

17 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think it might be the RQ3 rule I miss the most in BRP. It's easy to port over though. It's sort of a reverse Catch-22 situation. If there is a rule from a Chaosium product that you know of and like that didn't make it into BRP then you can port it over, and anything you haven't seen you don't miss. 

I prefer to have the same base value for all skills under the same category,but it's only a detail.

When you looked at the skill bonuses of a Melnibonéan (not counting its demon armor or weapon), it made INT feel less like a dump stat.

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, Mugen said:

I prefer to have the same base value for all skills under the same category,but it's only a detail.

That was exactly what I was thinking. The idea was that Perception would start out at a set value (say 2xINT% or some such) and all the skills under it (Spot, Listen, Taste, etc.) would start at that value and be increased separately from there.  That way you'd have a half dozen or so basic skill categories that covered all skills that would serve as a default, and then just only need to track specific values in the dozen or so skills that any given character is good at. Some skills could have an unskilled penalty to prevent people from being able to rely on the default to to the impossible, such as speaking a language that they never had encountered before. 

The example I gave above assumed that the character had increased Spot and Listen above the starting default of 20%. Sorry I should have explained that. 

IMO  this approach it is at least as elegant as the Common/Expert method, but significantly more functional as any skill a character could attempt, that they would have some chance of success with, is already covered by the skill categories. 

10 hours ago, Mugen said:

When you looked at the skill bonuses of a Melnibonéan (not counting its demon armor or weapon), it made INT feel less like a dump stat.

Yeah, in old SB, and RQ3 there were significant bonuses to having INT 20 or even CHA/APP 20 ( A bigger dump stat). Ironically though, those games tended to use random attribute generation so dump stats didn't really matter.

[SDLeary]

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

I prefer to have the same base value for all skills under the same category,but it's only a detail.

Another option is to use STAT+STAT in a category header as the base only for trained skills.

• Skills have bases as listed, those numbers are the chance of success if the skill being used is untrained, category value is NOT added
• In order to be considered trained, the character has to spend the appropriate amount of time training in order to get their check; two weeks game time for learning a new skill perhaps (perhaps more for languages, or language not related to the pupils language)?
• Once they have completed the amount of time, and successfully rolled their check, the skill immediately becomes the STAT+STAT value of that category; representing the quick learning combined with innate skill.
• Skills that have points allocated at creation are considered trained

This last one would be one that would have to be watched, so players are not putting a single point into all skills just to claim they have been trained. Of course this issue would vary widely depending upon the dynamics of individual game groups.

SDLeary

Edited May 7, 2023 by SDLeary

[Mugen]

7 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Another option is to use STAT+STAT in a category header as the base only for trained skills.

• Skills have bases as listed, those numbers are the chance of success if the skill being used is untrained, category value is NOT added
• In order to be considered trained, the character has to spend the appropriate amount of time training in order to get their check; two weeks game time for learning a new skill perhaps (perhaps more for languages, or language not related to the pupils language)?
• Once they have completed the amount of time, and successfully rolled their check, the skill immediately becomes the STAT+STAT value of that category; representing the quick learning combined with innate skill.
• Skills that have points allocated at creation are considered trained

This last one would be one that would have to be watched, so players are not putting a single point into all skills just to claim they have been trained. Of course this issue would vary widely depending upon the dynamics of individual game groups.

SDLeary

I agree.

Second edition of Old French game Légendes Celtiques had a similar concept : each character had 8 "Gifts" (Combat, Magic, Art, Communication, and so on...), which was one's innate ability with a series of skills, with a value ranking from 0 to 8.

When untrained, a character used the corresponding Gift as the skill value (with a d20). When trained in a skill, he could add an Attribute (Strength, Intellect, ,etc.) ranging from 1 to 14.

To become trained in a skill usually required 3 to 6 months, but some very difficult skills (magic, obviously) required years. Some skills could not be used at all without training (magic, obviously...).

Character Creation let you pick 14 to 17 Trained skills, depending on your birth status. Some professions (Magical ones, obviously) required that you picked 10 of them to gain access to them. Although the skills could go beyond Gift+Attribute with experience and training, Character Creation required that you spent 1 of your trained skills to gain a single point in a skill.

It was possible to put Geasa on you character to gain more trained skills at character creation. Like Humakti or Yelmalio followers.