Organic Skill Trees

[Baconjurer]

4 hours ago, Aycorn said:

Hate to say it, hope not to sound rude or condescending, and I'll probably piss off everyone in this thread, but I think you're taking something simple and elegant and making it a hundred times more complicated.  A Climb is a Climb.  If you're using the BRP Big Gold Book, you can say its a more difficult, or easier, based on any number of factors.  But its still a Climb.

I suppose it may just come down to style of play, and if you and your players really want to drill down into it like that, and that's fun for you - well, more power to ya. 

Hey that's cool, I wouldn't bother sharing if I wasn't looking for feedback! But could you explain why it's 100x more complicated? Climb is actually still on the example tree I posted in fact. It's a bring your own skill list setup so you're not locked down to any particular interpretation of what a skill can do or what skills you can have. It also helps eliminate what I consider the serious problem of specialize not being tied to general skill, like being a master in Walther ppk, but being unable to fire a shotgun is very possible with by the book rules.

[g33k]

The biggest problem I see in this approach, honestly, is the munchkin/minmax'er who 18's a single stat and derives all their skills from that 18, claiming "that's how *I* interpret it!"

 

[Baconjurer]

16 minutes ago, g33k said:

The biggest problem I see in this approach, honestly, is the munchkin/minmax'er who 18's a single stat and derives all their skills from that 18, claiming "that's how *I* interpret it!"

 

Yeah I foresaw that right away. Four reasons why I think in play it wouldn't be a problem.

1.) It's perfectly reasonable for that to happen anyway, especially if you have randomly generated stats. For example, if I was born scrawny but intelligent and somehow found myself in an wrestling match, I would lean on my intelligence and understanding of simple machines to give myself the best chance of success. That's how judo and most martial arts work. People lean on the stats the gods gave them, without even thinking about it. A weak person won't use his strength to solve most problems, an unintelligent person won't rely on his brain much.

2.) The system is always in check by the ref. There's no possibility of rules lawyering your way to an unreasonable advantage because the rule is the ref needs to see that it is reasonable. If the ref doesn't believe that underwater basket weaving is a subcategory of sniper rifle, end of discussion. If you try to use your dexterity to do something that wouldn't normally be done that way you had better clearly explain. In this way the story being told is actually enhanced. Players are forced to really think and imagine what their characters are doing.

3.) The tiered skill caps limit how skillful you can become in more vague skills. If I used my intelligence to give me my best chance in a wrestling match, explaining that I will approach the challenge by trying to find high ground and use my body as a lever to attempt to trip and outmanuever the opponent, I still would be limited to just 18. And if I grew my tree enough to be a judo master, then what's wrong with that? It's not power gaming if a scrawny yet intelligent character can still be a threat in combat. It's just good character development. My character still has to put the work in to actually get those skills up. 

4.) In the standard skill system, you can increase skills indefinitely even if it doesn't make much sense. Theres no rule saying you can't  be a master of astrophysics without even rudimentary knowledge in math or general physics. The skill caps are an extra limit on power gamers that by the book doesn't even have, so in a way it is actually a lot harder to be a munchkin than it would be using the standard skill system.

[Aycorn]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:23 PM, Baconjurer said:

Hey that's cool, I wouldn't bother sharing if I wasn't looking for feedback! But could you explain why it's 100x more complicated? Climb is actually still on the example tree I posted in fact. It's a bring your own skill list setup so you're not locked down to any particular interpretation of what a skill can do or what skills you can have. It also helps eliminate what I consider the serious problem of specialize not being tied to general skill, like being a master in Walther ppk, but being unable to fire a shotgun is very possible with by the book rules.

I'm afraid I don't see it the same way at all.  And I'm left thinking you must be looking at very different books than I.

The books describe a Climb skill.  It says you can climb things.  If there's something about the climb (how steep, nature of the surface, etc) that make it more difficult, or less difficult, then you can modify the roll when the character is performing that climb.

You're suggesting breaking it down, so that you have to track your ability to climb and/all different climbs - thus taking one skill and effectively breaking it into a host of sub-skills.  To me, that is obviously more complicated.

What is this about mastering a Walther ppk, but being unable to fire a shotgun?  I've never seen anything like that in BRP or any Chaosium/BRP publication. 

 

 

[Baconjurer]

15 hours ago, Aycorn said:

I'm afraid I don't see it the same way at all.  And I'm left thinking you must be looking at very different books than I.

The books describe a Climb skill.  It says you can climb things.  If there's something about the climb (how steep, nature of the surface, etc) that make it more difficult, or less difficult, then you can modify the roll when the character is performing that climb.

You're suggesting breaking it down, so that you have to track your ability to climb and/all different climbs - thus taking one skill and effectively breaking it into a host of sub-skills.  To me, that is obviously more complicated.

Yes, but you also have to track all separate skills in the BGB. In the BGB you have to track both Firearm (Pistol) and Firearm (Shotgun); they are totally separate skills. Even if you have a skill of 91 in Firearm (Pistol) you still begin your study of Firearm (Shotgun) skill at rank 0. I'm suggesting that Firearm (Pistol) and Firearm (Shotgun) ought to be linked by a parent skill, Firearm. If you take up Shotgun and already have a skill of 45 in Firearms, Shotgun ought to start at skill rank 45. 

Because skills are interconnected, rather than being isolated, once you max out your Firearm skill, you don't need to worry about that again. Thus, you end up keeping track of less skills, not more. 

I think eliminating specializations wouldn't work well. You're saying don't break the skills down? Perhaps only have a Firearm skill and ignore the Firearm (Pistol) the book prescribes? The reason I think this wouldn't work, is because it's too arbitrary. Where do you stop the break down into specialization? Why even have a Firearm skill? Why not just have a Combat skill? Why even have a Combat skill, why not just have a Body skill...etc. Eventually you just wind up back at the core characteristics. I want a system that automatically sorts skills and gives them a proper weight based on how general they are, no matter what skills I end up with in my campaign. That's why I think the tree works well. Every new growth must be a subcategory of the previous branch. The general skills then naturally sink to the bottom near the root, while the specialized skills float out to the outer branches. Thus, they organically are given proper importance/weight.

[Atgxtg]

On 6/24/2017 at 11:53 AM, Aycorn said:

What is this about mastering a Walther ppk, but being unable to fire a shotgun?  I've never seen anything like that in BRP or any Chaosium/BRP publication. 

The look more closely. According to the BGB (pages 47-48) you have to select a specialty when picking a broad skill such as firearms, and that skill doesn't necessarily carry over to other, related skills (GM call). And even when it does, it's usually at half rating. So someone who mastered a PPK - that is have Firearms (Pistol) at 90%+, would't necessarily be above the base percentage with a shotgun. Now the "not being able to fire a shotgun" bit is an exaggeration. The character could certainly fire one, just might not have much chance to hit what he was shooting at. 

 

It's the same reason why Melee Weapon (Sword) and Melee Weapon (Spear) are separate skills and don't carry over to each other. 

[Aycorn]

17 hours ago, Baconjurer said:

Yes, but you also have to track all separate skills in the BGB. In the BGB you have to track both Firearm (Pistol) and Firearm (Shotgun); they are totally separate skills. Even if you have a skill of 91 in Firearm (Pistol) you still begin your study of Firearm (Shotgun) skill at rank 0. I'm suggesting that Firearm (Pistol) and Firearm (Shotgun) ought to be linked by a parent skill, Firearm. If you take up Shotgun and already have a skill of 45 in Firearms, Shotgun ought to start at skill rank 45. 

Because skills are interconnected, rather than being isolated, once you max out your Firearm skill, you don't need to worry about that again. Thus, you end up keeping track of less skills, not more. 

I think eliminating specializations wouldn't work well. You're saying don't break the skills down? Perhaps only have a Firearm skill and ignore the Firearm (Pistol) the book prescribes? The reason I think this wouldn't work, is because it's too arbitrary. Where do you stop the break down into specialization? Why even have a Firearm skill? Why not just have a Combat skill? Why even have a Combat skill, why not just have a Body skill...etc. Eventually you just wind up back at the core characteristics. I want a system that automatically sorts skills and gives them a proper weight based on how general they are, no matter what skills I end up with in my campaign. That's why I think the tree works well. Every new growth must be a subcategory of the previous branch. The general skills then naturally sink to the bottom near the root, while the specialized skills float out to the outer branches. Thus, they organically are given proper importance/weight.

I should never have weighed in on this.  Sorry.  It's the sort of debate I have zero interest in.

I'm absolutely a believer that everyone should play the way they want to play.  I do.

So, you have my blessing - if this works for you, you should go for it.  It wouldn't work for me. 

For me, Chaosium's system ain't broke - and don't need fixin'.

Best wishes anyway.

 

[Baconjurer]

1 minute ago, Aycorn said:

I should never have weighed in on this.  Sorry.  It's the sort of debate I have zero interest in.

I'm absolutely a believer that everyone should play the way they want to play.  I do.

So, you have my blessing - if this works for you, you should go for it.  It wouldn't work for me. 

For me, Chaosium's system ain't broke - and don't need fixin'.

Best wishes anyway.

 

On the contrary, your views really helped me focus my thoughts, I'm exactly asking for people to tell me what's bad about it, so I can think through it, play testing isn't super easy at this stage, so I'm relying on the wisdom other veterans to challenge my crazy ideas. So thank you

[Aycorn]

On 6/25/2017 at 10:04 AM, Atgxtg said:

The look more closely. According to the BGB (pages 47-48) you have to select a specialty when picking a broad skill such as firearms, and that skill doesn't necessarily carry over to other, related skills (GM call). And even when it does, it's usually at half rating. So someone who mastered a PPK - that is have Firearms (Pistol) at 90%+, would't necessarily be above the base percentage with a shotgun. Now the "not being able to fire a shotgun" bit is an exaggeration. The character could certainly fire one, just might not have much chance to hit what he was shooting at. 

 

It's the same reason why Melee Weapon (Sword) and Melee Weapon (Spear) are separate skills and don't carry over to each other. 

(Here I go again, wading in again, suicidally).

This may be a matter of interpretation, but I don't run it that way.  Firearms (Pistol) is your skill, and it applies to any make/model that would be called a "Firearm/Pistol".  There's no separate skill for a Walther PPK or any other specific gun model.  

We are in agreement on this: "not being able to fire a shotgun" is an exaggeration.  

Similarly, the Mathematics/Physics analogy doesn't fly for me.  If someone gives their character a significant skill in Physics, logic would dictate they'd have to have at least a decent Mathematics background, so toss some points into Mathematics (if you must), or just assume its there, and/or if a game situation came up where a Mathematics skill would be applied, use their Know roll.

I'm well aware many would disagree.  Right after the BGB came out, there were many debates about gun rules, and several homebrewed firearms tables giving ranges/damage/etc  for different makes/models of firearms.  To some that's clearly very important, but not to me.  

Again, this is how I like to do things.  I prefer to keep things simple, and I'd rather improvise a bit based on my understanding/interpretation of the rules.  I think the beauty of BRP/Chaosium is that it lends itself to that approach.  

But others prefer to do things differently.  The important that everyone and those they play with agree and are having a good time.

 

 

 

 

[Toadmaster]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 6:55 PM, Prime Evil said:

Alternatively, you can reduce the difficulty of the skill test by one grade for each level of specialisation the character possesses. If an adventurer with Handguns 47% is making a skill roll against an average difficulty, there is no modification to the roll. But if they have a specialisation with the Walther PPK, the roll is made against an Easy difficulty. The beauty of this approach is that there is no need to keep track of separate skill ratings for each specialisation - specialisations become mere descriptors that reduce the Difficulty Grade when they are applicable. 

I like this concept, it helps to reduce the separate skills to track, just some special situations when the specialization comes into play.

[Darius West]

On 6/19/2017 at 1:28 PM, Baconjurer said:

 

 

It seems to me that you are trying to re-write Hero System's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_Games skill structure for BRP (not HQ).   As a shooter, I don't think that people really specialize in firearms to the point where they differentiate between a Walther PPK and every other pistol.  I can see an argument for a separate sniper skill, given the computer assist modern sniper rifles come with to adjust for atmospheric conditions etc, but not for handguns.  There is also an argument to be put that having high punch, dodge and stealth may default to a high default martial arts, just as much as a high martial arts training might aid in punch, stealth and dodge.  Chicken/Egg conundrum or Wagon before Horse error (horse driven wheelbarrow?).  I think Cthulhu 7th ed and its use of skills that add on to similar skills is great, and a good compromise e.g. science skills add +10% to other science skills once you reach 50%.  I personally have no problem with skills going over 100%, as they merely raise the critical/special result chances a la RQ2.

[Toadmaster]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 8:32 AM, Darius West said:

As a shooter, I don't think that people really specialize in firearms to the point where they differentiate between a Walther PPK and every other pistol.

I would disagree to a point. There are guns I definitely shoot better than others, beyond the inherent abilities (accuracy) of the gun. This may not be intentional "specialization" as in I've specifically spent more time to learn that particular gun, but rather are inherent characteristics of the weapon, the fit of the gun in my hand, the character of the recoil, the placement / style of the sights, how it "points". What I shoot better may not match what you shoot better because we are different.

So "specialization" may not necessarily represent training to be better with a specific weapon so much as an improved skill level which represents the individual learning which weapons better suit their hand size, stature, recoil aversion etc. 

[g33k]

16 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I would disagree to a point. There are guns I definitely shoot better than others, beyond the inherent abilities (accuracy) of the gun. This may not be intentional "specialization" as in I've specifically spent more time to learn that particular gun, but rather are inherent characteristics of the weapon, the fit of the gun in my hand, the character of the recoil, the placement / style of the sights, how it "points". What I shoot better may not match what you shoot better because we are different.

So "specialization" may not necessarily represent training to be better with a specific weapon so much as an improved skill level which represents the individual learning which weapons better suit their hand size, stature, recoil aversion etc. 

Excellent points, all.  There's one more element, I think, after you've spent a long time with your "chosen" gun:  sheer familiarity.

Each weapon will have little quirks of handling; nothing that a skilled shooter cannot take into account and make adjustments for, of course!  But when it's "your" gun that you have primarily used & trained with for several years, then you have a layer of muscle memory and reflex that WILL give you an edge in-use vs. other pistols of like caliber & design.

It's automatic & reflexive, rather than a conscous choice, to drop the muzzle just a fraction -- you "know" without having to think about it that the gun shoots a bit high.  When you go for a quick-draw & snap shot, it is the EXACT size/weight/shape you're used to; your wrist knows the little twitch that gets the sight clear of the jacket, because you've snagged it there a dozen times and trained yourself to that quirk.  When you swing the weapon up to fire, it is the EXACT weight your arm expects, no need to pull the motion, or to put extra ooomph behind it.  When you grope for it blindly in the dark, you can tell just that split-second faster which bit of it your hand touched, and when you actually grab it, your hand is that-much-closer to getting a shooting grip.  Etc etc etc.

It isn't that you "only" shoot a Walther PPK; it isn't that you're deadly at twice the range an average shooter would be but only half as good with a Makarov PM / etc.  It's that you're just a bit better with the gun you know intimately than you are with a similar model that you've only shot a few times.

 

[Atgxtg]

Yeah, there is also a bit of this that isn't about experience or conscious choice, but feel and personal preferences. For example, personally, I find the Beretta 84, with the old woodend rounded and shaped grips really fit my hand very well, and made the pistol a dream to hold. 

Now the same holds true for other things besides weapons though. Pens, pencils, keyboard, computer mice, there are some that I find preferable to others, and that does often mean easier to use, and quicker to master. I'm not sure if, how, or should that be incorporated into BRP though. I do recall that RQ2 used to apply the similar weapon rule (half skill) when switching to a different weapon, even if it was the same type of weapon (i.e.from your broadsword to somebody else's broadsword), for reasons that match up with what I've said. 

[Darius West]

On 7/22/2017 at 3:45 PM, Toadmaster said:

I would disagree to a point. There are guns I definitely shoot better than others, beyond the inherent abilities (accuracy) of the gun. This may not be intentional "specialization" as in I've specifically spent more time to learn that particular gun, but rather are inherent characteristics of the weapon, the fit of the gun in my hand, the character of the recoil, the placement / style of the sights, how it "points". What I shoot better may not match what you shoot better because we are different.

So "specialization" may not necessarily represent training to be better with a specific weapon so much as an improved skill level which represents the individual learning which weapons better suit their hand size, stature, recoil aversion etc. 

I take your point but let me offer you a different answer.  What you are experiencing is, in fact, a function of what you dismissed as inherent abilities, which are not merely the accuracy of the weapon, but run to a number of other features as well.  I would class this as being a matter of design.

The recoil characteristics are dependent on individuals and their strength and mass (I have often considered separating Strength and Mass in game systems).  SIght placement is clearly a design issue and so is grip design, shell ejection (or lack thereof) etc.  Simply put, I think some firearms are just better designed and easier to use, and you are likely not alone in favoring them Toadmaster.  In BRP game terms this would be expressed as a higher base percentage e.g. providing a handgun skill base of 18% instead of 15%.  In terms of a game system however, there really isn't enough difference to warrant a separate skill imo.

The real problem with overspecialization rules is when you have a Dirty Harry who has 95% in .44 Magnum Desert Eagle who suddenly drops to 47% when he picks up a .22 Beretta Automatic because he has never used one before.  If anything, the lower recoil and more comfortable design should improve Dirty Harry's accuracy in this situation, because that is what happens when people who are used to larger calibers drop to smaller calibers (from personal experience).  Perhaps firearm skill should be tailored to recoil and damage more? 

[Toadmaster]

20 hours ago, Darius West said:

I take your point but let me offer you a different answer.  What you are experiencing is, in fact, a function of what you dismissed as inherent abilities, which are not merely the accuracy of the weapon, but run to a number of other features as well.  I would class this as being a matter of design.

The recoil characteristics are dependent on individuals and their strength and mass (I have often considered separating Strength and Mass in game systems).  SIght placement is clearly a design issue and so is grip design, shell ejection (or lack thereof) etc.  Simply put, I think some firearms are just better designed and easier to use, and you are likely not alone in favoring them Toadmaster.  In BRP game terms this would be expressed as a higher base percentage e.g. providing a handgun skill base of 18% instead of 15%.  In terms of a game system however, there really isn't enough difference to warrant a separate skill imo.

The real problem with overspecialization rules is when you have a Dirty Harry who has 95% in .44 Magnum Desert Eagle who suddenly drops to 47% when he picks up a .22 Beretta Automatic because he has never used one before.  If anything, the lower recoil and more comfortable design should improve Dirty Harry's accuracy in this situation, because that is what happens when people who are used to larger calibers drop to smaller calibers (from personal experience).  Perhaps firearm skill should be tailored to recoil and damage more? 

 On the first part, it really isn't a factor of "better" design, it is a factor of better fit to an individual. The double stack 9mm pistol being a great example, people with smaller hands often have trouble with these pistols because that fat magazine results in a grip that is difficult for them to get a good grasp on. My wife is a perfect example, she has a very hard time with my S&W 6906, but can shoot the harder recoiling Ruger P90 single stack .45 ACP or Ruger GP100 .357 Mag quite well. The S&W 6906 shoots quite well for me, because the fat grip fits my hand very comfortably. I've run into people who have gone in the other direction, shooting a 9mm better than a less powerful .380 ACP pistol. Nominally a lighter recoil, but the small pistol didn't fit their hand as well resulting in less confident shooting. People also have more and less sensitivity to recoil. Much is due to training, but some is innate beyond size and strength, some people just tolerate recoil better than others.

 

On your second point I agree. While I do think there is a some amount of personal "fit", it certainly isn't anywhere on the level of double. If I were going to include rules for something like that it would probably in the realm of 5-20%. Similarly I have no issue with more powerful guns having a penalty. Most .44 Mag pistols are in fact quite accurate weapons, but many people have difficulty with the power of the round. Such a penalty doesn't necessarily indicate it is an inaccurate weapon, simply one that takes more training to master. One could say the same for an unusually shaped weapon such as the Mauser C96. It is a very accurate pistol, but for someone accustomed to the shape of modern pistols it could potentially be awkward to shoot initially.

I'm thinking beyond simply point and shoot, but things like safety controls (slide mounted, grip mounted, flip up, flip down etc), magazine releases (bottom mount or grip mount) etc. These are minor things in the larger scheme, but they can impact your shooting skill due to distraction (fumbled with the different style safety release and rushed your shot) or even cause a fumble (bad place to rest your thumb, this isn't your SIG with a heel mounted mag release, you just dumped your magazine dude, bummer). Have a cowboy and a British soldier swap their Winchester and Enfield, while both can probably adapt, they will have a learning curve. A shooter will tend to lack confidence when using an unfamiliar weapon, and this will result in lesser skill particularly under pressure.   

 

Of course the major factor is just how deep into the minutia does one want to go?

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

 

Of course the major factor is just how deep into the minutia does one want to go?

And on what issues. Generally speaking it's all a trade off of playability and speed for detail and complexity. Not everybody is going to agree on just where to draw the line, or just when to either. There are some things that some people will want more detail for that others won't, but those same people won't be bothered about detail in some other area that yet some others will find to be crucial. 

 

And a lot of that depends on just what you try to do with the game. For example in most games, it doesn't really matter too much just how much a truck weighs. But, in a campaign where character or creatures could have an actual chance of doing so, such things start to matter. 

[Toadmaster]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

 

And a lot of that depends on just what you try to do with the game. For example in most games, it doesn't really matter too much just how much a truck weighs. But, in a campaign where character or creatures could have an actual chance of doing so, such things start to matter. 

I really noticed that with post apocalypse games and fuel. How much fuel does an M3 Start hold and how far can it go on a gallon of fuel? Most of the time who cares, but if your Twilight 2000 party just liberated it from a museum it kind of matters. In a WW2 game, it is just how far can it go and is there a fuel depot somewhere between full and empty.

[Atgxtg]

21 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I really noticed that with post apocalypse games and fuel. How much fuel does an M3 Start hold and how far can it go on a gallon of fuel? Most of the time who cares, but if your Twilight 2000 party just liberated it from a museum it kind of matters. In a WW2 game, it is just how far can it go and is there a fuel depot somewhere between full and empty.

Exactly. Sometimes some people here (say, me, for example) will focus on some innocuous and trivial detail, to the surprise and chagrin of others. Often this is because what was considered to be a "who cares" tpoic can actually become an issue under the right circumstances. For instance the fairly low damage and poor stopping power of light caliber weapons in BRP can actually be an important issue in a spy campaign where the characters are forced by circumstances to use them.  Ditto knives. 

[g33k]

So... getting back to the topic of "specialization" -- I like such rules!  But I hate "overspecialization" rules which make it POSSIBLE under RAW for such absurdities as:

On 7/23/2017 at 2:42 AM, Darius West said:

... overspecialization rules is when you have a Dirty Harry who has 95% in .44 Magnum Desert Eagle who suddenly drops to 47% when he picks up a .22 Beretta Automatic because he has never used one before ... 

I consider that a "specialization" is a mix of:

• "ergonomics" - the way the weapon/tool/etc fits your hand, has correct weight, suits your preferences, etc.
• "specialized" training - guns at shooting-ranges/etc , melee-weapons at the salle/dojo/etc, practice on your own, etc.
• "habit" - you have used it in real situations (and in practice) so much that no element or component requires any conscious thought or decision; everything flows.

I just bundle it all up as an undifferentiated mass, I don't say that THIS part of the bonus comes from having THAT advantage, etc:  it's all one "specialization."

I consider it a bonus atop the skill:  Longsword 50% (O'Klee family heirloom "The Grande Dame" +10); or maybe Handgun 50% (my Ruger P90 with custom grip&sights +10); etc... 

And I permit UP TO the lesser of +20% or +1/5 of the base skill.

 

[Atgxtg]

On 7/23/2017 at 5:42 AM, Darius West said:

The real problem with overspecialization rules is when you have a Dirty Harry who has 95% in .44 Magnum Desert Eagle who suddenly drops to 47% when he picks up a .22 Beretta Automatic because he has never used one before.  If anything, the lower recoil and more comfortable design should improve Dirty Harry's accuracy in this situation, because that is what happens when people who are used to larger calibers drop to smaller calibers (from personal experience).  Perhaps firearm skill should be tailored to recoil and damage more? 

It probably takes awhile for all this to kick in though. 

 

But part of the problem is that the learning curve/difficulty in BRP is the same for anything and everything. Quantum Mechanics and Basket-weaving both improve at the same rate. Difficulty is factored into the base % scores, but once a skill is improved it's contributing factors don't really matter much anymore. And by using the base % as the "earning curve" what happens in that a skill with a lower base percentage will tend to improve faster than one with a higher base percentage, because:

 

1) You only need to succeed once to get a skill check, and usually get multiple chances to use the skill during the session.

2) Once you have a skill check lower skill scores have a better chance of improving. 

 

In fact, I suspect that if you take two skills with different base scores and give them both the same number of valid attempts for a skill check each session, the lower skill would probably catch up with the higher one, eventually. 

[g33k]

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It probably takes awhile for all this to kick in though. 

But part of the problem is that the learning curve/difficulty in BRP is the same for anything and everything. Quantum Mechanics and Basket-weaving both improve at the same rate. Difficulty is factored into the base % scores, but once a skill is improved it's contributing factors don't really matter much anymore. And by using the base % as the "earning curve" what happens in that a skill with a lower base percentage will tend to improve faster than one with a higher base percentage, because:

1) You only need to succeed once to get a skill check, and usually get multiple chances to use the skill during the session.

2) Once you have a skill check lower skill scores have a better chance of improving. 

In fact, I suspect that if you take two skills with different base scores and give them both the same number of valid attempts for a skill check each session, the lower skill would probably catch up with the higher one, eventually. 

One of the early criticisms I heard from players was the "asymptotic perfection curve" of RQ -- ALL the PC's, whether sword-masters or priests or street-rats from Pavis, tended after a while to asymptotically approach 100% in a highly-similar suite of skills (melee attack, ranged attack, stealth, etc), and began feeling same-y.  Yes, the sword-master was a bit better on his primary attack, and sword is different than the paired daggers the street-rat favors, etc.  But "same-y" not identical !

Also, as you have noted, some skills are just MUCH easier to learn than other skills; this isn't well-represented in BRP.

Another element is the idea of "skills dependency" -- you need to be able to count before you can add and subtract, you need basic arithmetic before algebra, you need algebra & geometry before trigonometry, etc etc etc...

You need a LOT of prior skills before you begin with even a "base %" in quantum mechanics!

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

Also, as you have noted, some skills are just MUCH easier to learn than other skills; this isn't well-represented in BRP.

Yes, but it's something that could be represented fairly easily. For example you could alter the chance for improvement for easy or hard skills, or, even simplier, alter the die roll whensomeone does improve. Just a simple +1/-1 to the D6 roll for improvment would have an impact over time. 

5 hours ago, g33k said:

Another element is the idea of "skills dependency" -- you need to be able to count before you can add and subtract, you need basic arithmetic before algebra, you need algebra & geometry before trigonometry, etc etc etc...

Yes, but the question is, should these all be separate skills, or subskills of mathematics?

5 hours ago, g33k said:

You need a LOT of prior skills before you begin with even a "base %" in quantum mechanics!

Pne approach might be to say that as someone hits a certain proficiency with a skill they get the next related skill at a starting score (maybe half the "trigger skill") and that progression continues the road for the next related skill. 

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but it's something that could be represented fairly easily. For example you could alter the chance for improvement for easy or hard skills, or, even simplier, alter the die roll whensomeone does improve. Just a simple +1/-1 to the D6 roll for improvment would have an impact over time. 

I can see quite a few ways to easily do this.  As you say, just reducing the %improve on a successful check is easy.  Only allow 1/2 the normal chance-to-improve.  Require 2 skill-checks in-hand for each improvement-roll.  Etc...   Any chance we'll see this sort of idea captured in RQG, does anyone know?

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but the question is, should these all be separate skills, or subskills of mathematics?

Separate skills, in a dependency tree.  For example, algebra is a pre-requisite for both Discrete Math and Calculus, but they are different branches of the tree -- one can become quite advanced in one without any ability in the other (obviously, this is unlikely in most modern university settings where "calculus" is usually taken as the first "serious math" class; and both calc & discrete are required for any major or minor ... ).

There is also the case of complementary skills, where having one skill HELPS another, but isn't strictly-necessary.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

One approach might be to say that as someone hits a certain proficiency with a skill they get the next related skill at a starting score (maybe half the "trigger skill") and that progression continues the road for the next related skill. 

Any skill(s) that they just "get" when they reach a certain point looks to me like a skill/subskill suite.  If "competence in A" makes it possible (but not automatic) to gain "skill B" looks like separate skills in a "B depends on A" relationship.

Some skills depend on multiple skills -- you need BOTH high-level surgery skills AND deep knowlege of neurology before you can begin doing neurosurgery, for example; each of those is a branch of medecine, but a neurologist may have no more surgical skills than General Practitioner, and a surgeon may kno no more neurology than the same GP...

But (as has alreach come up in this thread) it depends on how deeply one wants to delve into the minutea of skills-trees, skills-dependencies, specialties, skills/subskills, etc etc etc ad infinitum et ad nauseam...  

Edited July 27, 2017 by g33k

[Darius West]

On 7/26/2017 at 7:30 AM, Atgxtg said:

It probably takes awhile for all this to kick in though. 

 

No, not really.  If you have been shooting with a .45 or a 9mm and you drop to a .22, your control and accuracy improves immediately.  That is why in some ways I regard firearm skill as being a combination of being able to reliably hit a moving target by gaining an instinctive knowledge of range vs projectile speed, and the rest is about having the arm muscles and mass to handle recoil from heavier calibres.

On 7/26/2017 at 7:30 AM, Atgxtg said:

But part of the problem is that the learning curve/difficulty in BRP is the same for anything and everything. Quantum Mechanics and Basket-weaving both improve at the same rate. Difficulty is factored into the base % scores, but once a skill is improved it's contributing factors don't really matter much anymore. And by using the base % as the "earning curve" what happens in that a skill with a lower base percentage will tend to improve faster than one with a higher base percentage, because:

1) You only need to succeed once to get a skill check, and usually get multiple chances to use the skill during the session.

2) Once you have a skill check lower skill scores have a better chance of improving. 

1

You raise a good point here.  I would suggest a scaled rate of increase based on difficulty like:  Very Easy Skill= 1d6+4%, Easy Skill=1d6+2%,  Normal Skill= 1d4+1%, Difficult Skill=1d3%, Very Difficult=1%.  Thus basket weaving is much easier to master than Quantum Mechanics (which also has pre-requisites like maths and its sub-skills as g33k rightfully suggests, as well as physics imo).  The Wasted Land (Call of C'thulhu) had a mechanic for "gas mask use" which involved the skill of putting on your gas mask quickly during a WW1 gas attack, where it had a base of 25% and each successful use netted a +25% increase if a character made their up.  I like this idea.  Some skills pertinent to situations are pretty easy, for example, flame thrower use, which is scarcely harder than using a garden hose (the hard part being not accidentally roasting your buddies).  I might be exaggerating a little, but flame throwers are easy to learn to use, and it certainly doesn't take 2-5 years game time to master.

17 hours ago, g33k said:

One of the early criticisms I heard from players was the "asymptotic perfection curve" of RQ -- ALL the PC's, whether sword-masters or priests or street-rats from Pavis, tended after a while to asymptotically approach 100% in a highly-similar suite of skills (melee attack, ranged attack, stealth, etc), and began feeling same-y.  Yes, the sword-master was a bit better on his primary attack, and sword is different than the paired daggers the street-rat favors, etc.  But "same-y" not identical !

5

I know what you mean. Why, it's almost like players' characters are all in the same profession, the way they always get the same suite of skills.  I wonder what you would call that profession?  Just putting it out there but how does "adventurer" grab you?