Making Skills Matter More

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Bigger/more Default penalties? I mean all the raw brain power in the world might not matter much if you've never even done the thing once (excepting higher levels of cinematicness).

You could even impose a "low training" penalty for times when the player buys skills but still relies on higher attribute ratings.

Or you could tie having meta-currency to having high skill levels. Maybe having high a high skill means getting a free use of Intuition per X, or you could tie high skills into one of the systems from Power-Ups: Impulse Buys.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Bengt

So? Influence skills only give you a 'good' reaction on NPCs that doesn't have a predetermined reaction. Do people really use reaction rolls so much that it's worthwhile for PCs to sink oodles of points in influence?

The game system should allow for it, if it wants to be generic and universal. The last session of Infinite Cabal was mostly spent doing a low-tech PR campaign. Visiting temples, giving gifts, getting reaction rolls, and if necessary, trying to improve them with Luck or Diplomacy. GURPS handled this very smoothly. I'm not claiming every campaign should be like that, but the ability to handle it is worthwhile.

[AlexanderHowl]

'20' is not superhuman good in a skill, at least not by RAW. By RAW, '20' is a skill level of a master of a trade, and a significant minority of the adult population should have '20' in a minimum of one skill. I will explain.

Since it only cost 40 CP for even a person with average attributes to reach level 20 in one average skill (or a specialty in a hard skill), that level of experience represents 32,000 hours of work experience (around 16 years if a job involved a single skill). Since jobs tend to cover one primary skill and a couple of secondary skills, the majority of people will only be able to allocate fifty percent of their experience improving their primary skill, with the rest of their work experience improving their secondary skills (meaning that it would take 32 years of experience to reach level 20).

With contemporary business models devaluing work experience, there are less people who end up staying in job fields long enough to develop level 20, but I would say that 10% of the adult population should have level 20 in a single skill by age 60 in a contemporary society, so level 20 should be considered far from 'superhuman' and should be considered quite human. Level 25 should be quite rare, since it represents a gifted person with significant work experience, and level 30 should be the best ever, since it represents the most gifted person ever with significant work experience.

By RAW, everyone should know a lot of people with skill 20 though, so it should be pretty mundane. For example, a 60 year old car mechanic should have Mechanic (Automobile)-20, allowing him to diagnose and fix a car in 1/5th of the time as a 20 year old mechanic because he possesses sufficient experience to do the work without referring to automobile guides and because he works smarter and not harder In fact, the reason why it takes him a couple of days to do a major job is because he will have to order parts from a supplier, since every brand of car possesses its specific parts. I doubt that anyone will call him superhuman though.

Anyway, back to topic, I am just saying that the person with the most experience and the most training should receive a bonus beyond their skill level. Whether or not you go by RAW or belong to the cult of state normalization though, it is always better to purchase Attributes and Advantages by RAW over developing more than one skill.

I think that people are focusing too much on level 20 skills though, so let us use a different example. A fighter with six combat skills at 14 is a fairly standard build. You can make the fighter with DX 10, Bow (A) DX+4 [16], Brawling (E) DX+4 [12], Fast-Draw (Arrow) (E) DX+4 [12]-14, Knife (E) DX+4 [12]-14, Shield (A) DX+4 [16]-14, and Spear (A) DX+4 [16]-14 for 84 CP or you can make the fighter with DX 12 and DX+2 in the same six combat skills for 76 CP. In the latter case, you also get +2 to all DX rolls and skills and +0.5 Basic Speed, and you are as good as the more experienced fighter in practically every way by RAW. In the former case, you have the dubious pleasure of paying an extra 8 CP to be an inferior character. With the new optional rule though, the more experienced fighter could ignore an additional -2 levels of situational penalties and/or receive an additional +2 bonus in Contests of Skill, like feints, over the less experienced chracter.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The game system should allow for it, if it wants to be generic and universal. The last session of Infinite Cabal was mostly spent doing a low-tech PR campaign. Visiting temples, giving gifts, getting reaction rolls, and if necessary, trying to improve them with Luck or Diplomacy. GURPS handled this very smoothly. I'm not claiming every campaign should be like that, but the ability to handle it is worthwhile.

Agreed – and not just as a point of pride as one of the game's designers.

—

What many GURPS players miss is that the reactions system is exactly that: a system. It isn't just rolling on a table. The game assumes you'll also be using several other concepts:

• Predetermined reactions.
• Reaction penalties and bonuses that originate with the NPC, not the PC.
• Best- and worst-case reactions.

If an NPC reacts at -5 to anyone and never better than "Neutral," then Fast-Talk-20 works like Fast-Talk-15 (because NPC-side reaction modifiers explicitly apply to Influence rolls), and even if that beats the NPC's Will in an Influence roll, the result will be "Neutral," not "Good." And if that NPC has a fixed, predetermined reaction, then Fast-Talk-20 or even Fast-Talk-200 can't change that; Influence skills are useless in situations where the GM wouldn't make a regular reaction roll. This is true whether that predetermined reaction is "Disastrous" or "Excellent."

Moreover, Influence rolls in particular are subject to modifiers for appropriateness, which range from 0 to -10. Among the Influence skills, Fast-Talk, Intimidation, and Sex Appeal are most often penalized for this, as lies, threats, and salacious conduct all have a high potential to offend. Savoir-Faire and Streetwise are safer, but whenever one is appropriate and unpenalized, the other is almost perforce inappropriate and penalized. Only Diplomacy is nearly always appropriate – and unsurprisingly, it's the only Hard skill in the lot, and uses special rules.

The GM's job is to add some interesting texture to the NPCs, so they're not all bland video-game characters who respond algorithmically to skill use. For each NPC of any importance, the GM should decide:

1. Are reactions predetermined?
   
   
   • If so, what is the reaction level?
     
     
   • If not:
     • Does the NPC give the PCs a bonus or penalty to reaction and Influence rolls? If so, how large?
     • Do any Influence skills count as "inappropriate"? If so, what penalties pertain?
     • Is there a best- or worst-case reaction? If so, what is that reaction level?
   
   
2. What is the meaning of each reaction level? That is, how do "Disastrous," "Very Bad," etc., all the way up to "Excellent" actually manifest with this NPC in particular? Because an angry accountant isn't the same thing as an angry berserker with an axe, and a thankful king isn't the same thing as a thankful beggar.

Every question after the first above is at least as important as working out combat skills, active defenses, armor and weapons, damage, etc. for NPCs whose predetermined reaction is "Bad," "Very Bad," or "Disastrous," leading to inevitable combat. But if the GM is skipping this step all the time, Influence skills will seem badly over- or under-powered, and in any case very much all-or-nothing.

[Kromm]

On the subject of making skills more relevant in cinematic games, I recommend GURPS Power-Ups 7: Wildcard Skills. That supplement offers ways to vastly shorten the skill list, elevate skills to the level of powers, and attach concrete benefits to high skill beyond just better odds of success. A benefit of special interest is a system that turns high skill investments into points that can be spent to accomplish cinematic feats, which works extremely well with GURPS Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys. There are also less cinematic "alternative benefits" similar to those in GURPS Power-Ups 3: Talents.

The three GURPS Power-Ups items cited above are almost must-haves for skills-centric campaigns. For that matter, GURPS Power-Ups 2: Perks is fairly applicable as well, as it offers many perks that leverage skill and proposes setting limits on perks linked to points in skills.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Make the system have fewer skills, like 15-30 (without making them too expensive), and/or increase the variety of actually relevant and distinct attributes, and people won't be incentivised to rely on attributes as much.

The thing is, though, I've played in and run games that have short spell lists. For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has around 15 or 20 skills, and original World of Darkness is around 30. And what happens then is that you get implausibly broad competence (for example, one melee weapons skill, one science skill, or one persuasion skill) and diminished ability to differentiate characters. You also don't have a very open-ended skill system; if your character concept involves being good at sophisticated cooking, and the game doesn't have that particular skill, you're out of luck. But if you allow adding that skill, then that's partly how GURPS got that long, long skill list.

Now, you could go the other way, and increase the number of attributes. GURPS does seem a little tight at four, though current GURPS in many ways functions like a six-attribute game. But I've run lots of games with three groups of attributes (physical, mental, and spiritual, or physical, mental, and social) and two or three attributes per group. That might get you up as high as nine. But if you have a long and somewhat open-ended skill list, you're still going to have a high ratio.

GURPS has take steps to fill in the gap with Talents. Is there a reason that they don't sufficiently provide for what you're looking for?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The thing is, though, I've played in and run games that have short spell lists. For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has around 15 or 20 skills, and original World of Darkness is around 30. And what happens then is that you get implausibly broad competence (for example, one melee weapons skill, one science skill, or one persuasion skill) and diminished ability to differentiate characters. You also don't have a very open-ended skill system; if your character concept involves being good at sophisticated cooking, and the game doesn't have that particular skill, you're out of luck. But if you allow adding that skill, then that's partly how GURPS got that long, long skill list.

Now, you could go the other way, and increase the number of attributes. GURPS does seem a little tight at four, though current GURPS in many ways functions like a six-attribute game. But I've run lots of games with three groups of attributes (physical, mental, and spiritual, or physical, mental, and social) and two or three attributes per group. That might get you up as high as nine. But if you have a long and somewhat open-ended skill list, you're still going to have a high ratio.

GURPS has take steps to fill in the gap with Talents. Is there a reason that they don't sufficiently provide for what you're looking for?

WoD/Exalted-like 30-skill setups seem like a good default setup to me. And ideally the skill list should be closed-ended, so e.g. cooking is a subset of Crafts . . . and anyone who wants to be good at a narrow thing could buy an optional specialisation. (Admittedly WoD/ST/Exalted seems to not handle specialisations well, even though it has a good base idea.)

As for the pseudo-six-attribute setup of GURPS, a problem is that there's still very heavy bundling. IQ is so grouped that taking only a part of it seems like a less efficient choice due to all the complications it causes (like the interaction with the disad limit). Also raising skills beyond attributes is just too expensive comparing to just buying attributes given the number of skills usually on the sheet. In my experience characters tend to have 40-60 skills, often 30-50 of those IQ-based, just to cover their directions of competences.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

WoD/Exalted-like 30-skill setups seem like a good default setup to me. And ideally the skill list should be closed-ended, so e.g. cooking is a subset of Crafts . . . and anyone who wants to be good at a narrow thing could buy an optional specialisation. (Admittedly WoD/ST/Exalted seems to not handle specialisations well, even though it has a good base idea.)

I'm running a Mage campaign right now, and I find, for example, having a single science skill and a single technology skill endurable for the really handwavy style of play the game encourages. But it's not remotely believable as a description of people in the real world. Even the single Chemistry skill and single Geology skill in GURPS strain credibility. I like having a game that makes a serious attempt to portray people in at least as much detail as I would look for in a novel, rather than in a TV show or comic book where one character is "the scientist."

And as Kromm says, you can use wild card skills if you want that sort of handwaviness.

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

'20' is not superhuman good in a skill, at least not by RAW. By RAW, '20' is a skill level of a master of a trade, and a significant minority of the adult population should have '20' in a minimum of one skill. I will explain.

Since it only cost 40 CP for even a person with average attributes to reach level 20 in one average skill (or a specialty in a hard skill), that level of experience represents 32,000 hours of work experience (around 16 years if a job involved a single skill). Since jobs tend to cover one primary skill and a couple of secondary skills, the majority of people will only be able to allocate fifty percent of their experience improving their primary skill, with the rest of their work experience improving their secondary skills (meaning that it would take 32 years of experience to reach level 20).

With contemporary business models devaluing work experience, there are less people who end up staying in job fields long enough to develop level 20, but I would say that 10% of the adult population should have level 20 in a single skill by age 60 in a contemporary society, so level 20 should be considered far from 'superhuman' and should be considered quite human. Level 25 should be quite rare, since it represents a gifted person with significant work experience, and level 30 should be the best ever, since it represents the most gifted person ever with significant work experience.

By RAW, everyone should know a lot of people with skill 20 though, so it should be pretty mundane. For example, a 60 year old car mechanic should have Mechanic (Automobile)-20, allowing him to diagnose and fix a car in 1/5th of the time as a 20 year old mechanic because he possesses sufficient experience to do the work without referring to automobile guides and because he works smarter and not harder In fact, the reason why it takes him a couple of days to do a major job is because he will have to order parts from a supplier, since every brand of car possesses its specific parts. I doubt that anyone will call him superhuman though.

From How To Be A GURPS GM, p. 12.

16-17: Someone good enough to stand out in his field, however
rarefied (top commando, ace of aces, etc.).
18-19: Best of a generation (e.g., the world’s best sniper).

Masters (20-25)

20-21: Top master alive (presumably good enough to teach
the best of a couple of generations).
22-23: Confirmed top master of all time.

So that's my understanding of RAW.

I'll stop there, since you said it was getting off-topic, but it might help you to understand the disconnect. I wouldn't say all that On The Job Learning necessarily translates entirely to skills - Perks, Advantages, Techniques, or even skill raises.

I think that people are focusing too much on level 20 skills though, so let us use a different example. A fighter with six combat skills at 14 is a fairly standard build. You can make the fighter with DX 10, Bow (A) DX+4 [16], Brawling (E) DX+4 [12], Fast-Draw (Arrow) (E) DX+4 [12]-14, Knife (E) DX+4 [12]-14, Shield (A) DX+4 [16]-14, and Spear (A) DX+4 [16]-14 for 84 CP or you can make the fighter with DX 12 and DX+2 in the same six combat skills for 76 CP. In the latter case, you also get +2 to all DX rolls and skills and +0.5 Basic Speed, and you are as good as the more experienced fighter in practically every way by RAW. In the former case, you have the dubious pleasure of paying an extra 8 CP to be an inferior character. With the new optional rule though, the more experienced fighter could ignore an additional -2 levels of situational penalties and/or receive an additional +2 bonus in Contests of Skill, like feints, over the less experienced chracter.

Going back to this, I definitely accept that too many skills are required for combatant characters. On the other hand, I still think it makes sense for someone with limited natural aptitude (DX 10) to experience diminishing returns when learning skills to really high levels.

I'd throw a counter question. How do you end up so highly skilled in so many different fighting skills without also becoming more athletic? Someone training so many DX-based skills alongside each other is probably also training DX.

[Bengt]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The game system should allow for it, if it wants to be generic and universal. The last session of Infinite Cabal was mostly spent doing a low-tech PR campaign. Visiting temples, giving gifts, getting reaction rolls, and if necessary, trying to improve them with Luck or Diplomacy. GURPS handled this very smoothly. I'm not claiming every campaign should be like that, but the ability to handle it is worthwhile.

My point isn't that you shouldn't interact socially with NPCs, far from it, but that most NPCs that are relevant will also have some stakes and therefore predetermined reactions. Having most NPCs influenceable seems kind of odd to me really.