Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Floating skills is indeed the Great Overlooked. Not to toot my own horn, but I don't think GURPS content is to blame for this . . . the published oeuvre is chock-a-block with examples. Rather, it's mostly due to a mixture of rules-lawyer players insisting on "getting their points' worth" by always using the skill based on its nominal controlling attribute, and GMs either giving in to that pressure or being uncomfortable about making judgment calls.

Mostly though, is because most rolls are based on the same attribute.

For 5 years I GMed for a player with the alchemy skill, and it's always an IQ based test(or, at most, a Per based test, with in most cases is the same thing).

In the same group, there is a swordsman, he rolled sword through DX hundreds of time, but only once against IQ(to appraise a sword value).

Originally Posted by Kromm

Perhaps interestingly, my initial vision of GURPS Fourth Edition had skills bought and recorded strictly as relative levels: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, etc. It left attribute selection to the GM, guided by examples. However, other people felt that not listing ready-to-roll-against levels was a bad idea, and that requiring the GM to pick an attribute for each use was an even worse idea. Thus, we settled on the current system.

That would be a problem, people don't tend to like to do math while playing, and doing that every time you roll a skill would be overkill.

[The Benj]

If you can't add a 2-digit number and a 1-digit number, you really shouldn't be playing GURPS.
Or allowed to cross the street unattended.

[Yako]

While I appreciate everybody presenting their own system, I admit, I would have liked a bit more feedback than the two or three responses...

And to be fair, if inelegance is the issue, I admit I find none of the proposed systems to be anything close to that.

1.)

Virtual talents and similar is simply avoiding the issue by allowing the plyers to always "respec" to the most cheap alternative.
This works, but I am a bit dissatisfied if the writing staff propagates this while still giving us many sample characters and templates not really built around it (and rules on Talents that state that usually, you cannot just buy them when it is convenient).

Even if you do use this system however, I see a benefit in making the price cut-off (where skills are more expensive than attributes or talents) smoother and that was what my idea is for after all.

Attributes have a lot of added boni, if you really cut JUST to the skill part, it is really frighteningly cheap.
Talents muddy the waters even further.

2.)

I personally have no big trouble with the defaults for high attributes.
Defaults assume a certain base exposure (the basic book does make that rather clear), I am perfectly okay with a genius of IQ 16 to have defaults of 12 for easy skills and 10 for hard ones, that is what that kind of IQ is for after all!
And yes, an IQ 20 guy DOES have the proficiency of a trained professional in hard skills without being trained, but since I see such an IQ as the realm of fictional super genius characters and similar, again, no qualm with that, it does what it is supposed to do for me.


So, defaults based on halves of attributes are not my kind of solution, buckets of points neither, both for different reasons.
I also am not too much a fan of unusual backgrounds for balancing a system inherent issue (I see them as being to balance setting inherent issues, where a power is much more an advantage than its mere utility suggests and similar).


3.)

What I want is a skill pricing that still leaves the cost of specialization alone (sinking lots of points in a single skill IS very useful, especially in combat for example) but makes more "high skills" attractive than before where it is attributes or talents VERY soon.

I personally see my solution as no less inelegant than the pricing for alternative abilities, it is either 1/2 cost for every skill of the same attribute after the first OR 1/2 cost for second and third and 1/4 for the fourth and so on.

This would make it cheaper to be good at a handful of skills based on the same attribute and change the point where raising attributes becomes more attractive (or buying a talent).

This rule would not change anything about floating around attributes, I think while this can alleviate SOME of the problems with attribute VS skill, GURPS just has a too small number of raher braod attributes to make that matter too much.




So, I would be happy to maybe hear more input about this idea that is perhaps a bit more precise than "it is inelegant".

[arconom]

The correct solution is to not use attributes for your skills.

[Anthony]

Making stat costs variable (and ever-increasing) means there's always a point where you're better off buying up skills. Making skill costs variable (and ever-increasing) does the reverse. I've considered applying the range/speed chart to costs -- for example

Points	1	2	3	5	7	10	15	20	30	45	70	100	150	200
Stat	2	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Easy	+0	+2	+3	+4	+5	+6	+7	+8	+9	+10	+11	+12	+13	+14
Average	-2	+0	+1	+2	+3	+4	+5	+6	+7	+8	+9	+10	+11	+12
Hard	-4	-2	-1	+0	+1	+2	+3	+4	+5	+6	+7	+8	+9	+10
VH	-6	-4	-3	-2	-1	+0	+1	+2	+3	+4	+5	+6	+7	+8

but the result is messy for abilities that modify skills (such as talents) and things like racial attribute bonuses.

[Snaps]

All of my games in recent years have used a variation on Bang! skills that's worked well for our group. It let's the characters specialize, without being too complicated, and appears to really cut down on super high stats, even in my high point games. (I almost always run 300-500 point ISWAT campaigns, or variants).

They are probably more like Skill Groups rather than actual Bang! skills. The idea in a nutshell is that a character can buy a group of skills as a Bang! skill, at the normal 3 times the point cost. Then improve individual skills in those groups at the normal 4 points a level.

So a character might have something like:

Solider! +3 [20*3=60 points]
*Rifle +4 [16 points]
(So a total of +7 when using Rifles)

ISWAT Training +2 [48 points (I usually gave them this for free)]
*Elec. Op. (Parachronic) +2 [8 points]
(Total of +4 when operating a Parachronic device, etc).

Depending on how Cinematic I want to allow the game, I've at times even let them stack the skill groups. So two Bangs! like Solider! +3 and ISWAT Training! +2 would give them a +5 when shooting a pistol (since it can be assumed that they'd have learned how to shoot a pistol as part of both skill groups).

It's worked well for us, but YMMV.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Yako

What are your takes on this idea?

My take on it is that a RPG rules item or rules interaction is simple if you can explain it to a spreadsheet, and is not simple if you can't.

Yours seem to be an intermediate case, in that it probably can be explained to Calc or Excel, but requiring a disproportionate amount of effort.

[PTTG]

I wonder if we could make attributes exponentially expensive, and have skills be linear....

[Pahn]

Originally Posted by PTTG

I wonder if we could make attributes exponentially expensive, and have skills be linear....

This makes sense to me. Or base attribute costs on standard deviations from the mean. Going from 10 to 11 is cheap, but going from 14 to 15 is a lot more expensive. So basically, faster than linear growth, but not necessarily exponential.

Another option is to find some other benefit that can be attached to skill growth to make it worth the extra cost. Spitballing here, but bonuses to defense against weapons at which one is highly skilled is one possibility. Maybe modify critical hit/failure table results. At a certain level of skill, for example, you'll never get the worst possible results. Allow for mini-crits that don't automatically succeed, but provide some benefit.

[Balor Patch]

For strength, the ST / Weight could be purchased exponentially to match the other attributes, with striking and lifting ST derived from that and SM. (I built a spreadsheet using this way back when and liked it but never got to use it.)