Just a silly rant about silly things (like the names of things)

[dragonewt]

"Athletics is an exclusive collection of sporting events that involve competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking."

"In throwing events, athletes are measured by how far they hurl an implement, with the common events being the shot put, discus, javelin, and hammer throw."

That's a lot of skills under one label. It also covers a large variety of missile weapons. It's almost as versatile as the "thumb" skill.

Does this mean that my Olympiad character can perform all of these sub-skills equally well, and compete effectively at the Olympics in many many events (that normally take dedicated effort from one person for one event)?

I think the use of the term "athletics" is a lazy way to cover "endurance and traveling terrain, with a bit of hand-eye coordination". However, while most people conveniently assume the smaller sub-set, it is not really an accurate use of language.

When using a system that has "skill groups", "athletics" is a good top level "broad skill" to cover the many sub-skill categories.

[deleriad]

This is an old, old issue. How fine-grained do you make a skill set? Make it too fine-grained and you get absurdities like a someone who can run and jump brilliantly but is useless at throwing. The what happens is everyone says "seeing as I'm good at running and jumping surely I can get some kind of bonus to throwing by taking a run up or something." The more fine-grained you make the skill system the more fine-grained you need to make it.

RQ6/Legend has a specific issue here. While BRP has skill checks which means that the more skills you use in a session the more you can advance, RQ6 uses flat awards so the more skills you have the slower each one advances. So that system needs by definition broader skills.

My personal approach is that highly trained aspects of RQ6 basic skills should be developed as new professional skills. So an Olympic athlete who specializes in long-distance running might have Athletics, Endurance and Athletics (Long Distance Running) at 120%+. In a skill contest then I regard professional skills as superior to basic skills so (and this is a house rule) in an opposed roll where one is using a basic skill and one is using a professional skill then I award ties to the professional skill user rather than high-roller.

Finally, and I reckon most importantly, RQ6 is not an Olympics athletics modelling system. It is a fantasy role playing game that provides some (fairly) simple mechanics that tell you what usually happens when you hit an orc in the head with an axe. Complaining that RQ6 doesn't model the difference between sports is pretty much up there with complaining that "Pride and Prejudice" does a lousy job of deconstructing whaling in the 1800s.

[dragonewt]

Complaining that RQ6 doesn't model the difference between sports is pretty much up there with complaining that "Pride and Prejudice" does a lousy job of deconstructing whaling in the 1800s.

This means that skills sets are treated inconsistently, with too much focus on combat. Why not just have a "I hit it with my generic weapon" skill? This is in light of the degree of differentiation that is provided between weapon types and combat styles.

This can depend on what players, GMs and game designers see as important for a a chosen genre and tone of play. However this potentially provides a skewed view, which can potentially trap many people in a given mind-set of "melee/missile combat is the only solution". Or alternatively, the players who invests fewer 'points' in the broader non-combat skills can gain a some very potent game influencing abilities (assuming the game isn't a simplistic dungeon bash). "Charisma" is never a "dump stat", when used properly, and the game genre and tone allows for (or demands) this.

It is fairly easy to have a consistent skill tree system that treats combat in the same light as oratory, politics, medicine, athletics, and so on. Eg: some of those things developed in the classical age (as well as before and after - what are some of the qualities a classical Greek or Celtic hero are known for?). Have a look at the way Action! System provides a fairly consistent yet scalable system. Want skills-light? Then only use the broad category. Want detailed granular skills? Then use the sub-categories, or both. Want very granular specializations? That is available as well.

An example of the full scale would be: 40% in firearms, +20% with pistols, +10% with .44 Magnum. Or: 40% with 'social', +20% with lie, +10% with ballroom intrigue. The narrower skills have less scope, but are "cheaper" (point cost, training time, or however a particular system handles developing skills). The top tier above 'broad skills' would be stats, perhaps with something below 'stats' such as 'occupation', or 'class'.

D100 systems can also benefit from this approach.

Edited January 18, 2014 by dragonewt

[lawrence.whitaker]

It is fairly easy to have a consistent skill tree system that treats combat in the same light as oratory, politics, medicine, athletics, and so on. Eg: some of those things developed in the classical age (as well as before and after - what are some of the qualities a classical Greek or Celtic hero are known for?). Have a look at the way Action! System provides a fairly consistent yet scalable system. Want skills-light? Then only use the broad category. Want detailed granular skills? Then use the sub-categories, or both. Want very granular specializations? That is available as well.

RQ6 supports all of these by using Combat Styles rather than individual weapon skills or narrow weapon groupings. Combat Styles can be as broad (Energy Weapons) or as narrow (Broadsword and Shield) as you like, and reflective of the culture, profession, milieu, and so on. Most Combat Styles cover 3-4 different weapons that are likely to be trained and practiced together. Therefore, the Combat Style approach is very similar to how we have the separate physical disciplines of Climb, Jump and Run under Athletics, and helps de-emphasise the importance of combat skills when compared with other kinds of skill (a legacy from RQ's earliest origins).

[dragonewt]

Therefore, the Combat Style approach is very similar to how we have the separate physical disciplines of Climb, Jump and Run under Athletics

Which brings us full circle to the original poster's point. In RPGs in general, it is often the case that the skill labeled 'Athletics' does not actually represent the full complete scope of athletics (competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking).

I think the use of the term "athletics" is an overly generic way to cover "endurance and traveling terrain, with a bit of hand-eye coordination". However, while most people conveniently assume the smaller sub-set (an almost unwritten and convenient RPG convention), it is not really an accurate use of language. The reason for this is that unless explained, some players may assume that the meaning of the term is that defined in common language and not by some RPG specific short-hand.

Is using the RQ6 combat style approach for non-combat skills something that needs to be house-ruled (although derived from the 'style' logic that is already inherent in the rules; specifically the combat rules)?

Edited January 18, 2014 by dragonewt

[seneschal]

Why not just have a "I hit it with my generic weapon" skill?

There are some RPG systems running around that do exactly that. They're the polar opposite of other systems which have a separate weapon skill for every possible subcategory of pistol and knife. The former systems get you into play much faster, while the latter make the player feel special with his ultra-personal weapon specialization. Personally, I prefer systems somewhere in the middle, although as I age I'm drifting toward the "simple is good" end of the spectrum, especially when trying to persuade skeptical family members to play at all.

[Pete Nash]

Which brings us full circle to the original poster's point. In RPGs in general, it is often the case that the skill labeled 'Athletics' does not actually represent the full complete scope of athletics (competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking).

You are correct that some games do misuse it, but actually the OP's original point was specific to RuneQuest in particular, not games in general.

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"

RQ6's Athletics skill does include Running, Jumping and Throwing - with Climbing appended for skill conflation - so it actually represents the scope of athletics; and since this is clearly explained under the skill description, it should also qualify as accurate use of language. As you might know, Athletics in RQ6 is not used for "endurance and traveling terrain", that's what the Endurance skill is for.

I think the real issue here is not that modern game design has evolved towards shorter, more inclusive skill lists for ease of running games and that some skills are conflated for good reason... but more that the OP has a mental hangup which associates the word 'Athletics' with modern track and field events and hi-tech sporting equipment; rather than viewing it as an ancient set of associated disciplines which were used for healthy recreation, often vicious no-holds barred competition (both at personal and religious levels), and eventually as preparation for war. It is little known nowadays, but the highest regarded athletes pursued and trained a balanced set of abilities, hence the origin of the Pentathlon.

Is using the RQ6 combat style approach for non-combat skills something that needs to be house-ruled (although derived from the 'style' logic that is already inherent in the rules; specifically the combat rules)?

There is no support for Athletic Styles in the RQ6 RAW, but I could certainly add them into my Mythic Greece book, a setting which specifically lends itself to a greater focus on athletic sub-skills.

[j0nnyfive]

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.)

Edited January 20, 2014 by j0nnyfive
Clean up, remove snark

[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.

Edited January 20, 2014 by j0nnyfive
I want to re-type this.