Background Skills [House Rule]

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

In my next game, I am thinking about making a few changes concerning background skills because too few of my players tend to take them. Characters will automatically begin with 5 CP in each of the four groups of background ...
... grew up in a sheltered monastery, within a fictional virtual environment, locked in their parents basement since they were six years old, etc.. In addition, characters will have to take one level of Social Stigma (Ignorant) per level of Isolated, to represent the social difficulties represented by being ignorant about such a major part of normal human life.

What do you think? Would you use the above house rule in your games? If not, what problems do you see in having such a house rule?

Sewing is uncommon in the modern era. In pre-modern societies though, almost every woman should have a minimum of 4 CP invested in it by the time she marries, as she will need to make the clothing for her family. By the time that she is 50, she will likely have a total of 20 CP invested in it, and that is assuming that she only is sewing one hour a day. Cooking, Gardening, and Housekeeping would likely be at similar levels, as it is what housewives did in pre-modern times.

This is a weird response for me, because I agree with you completely. At the same time its untenable in terms of GAME play to realistically depict a person with "skills" in other than very general or very specific terms. Also its going to depend heavily on what game you want to play. For me GURPS is about the "exceptional versions of regular people" having an impact on the World. I run persistent campaigns or one shots that are usually in the world I created. I dont run true to life simulations, though I do try to keep the physics/magic at least reasonably realistic, thus I dont run 'Supers' and the like and have NEVER started a new group higher than 150/55 tending more to 125-140/35.

I tend to be pretty light handed with defaults in a setting where the PC could have been expected to have some "everyman" exposure to general skills. OTOH I do put specific facets in my games that allow those skills to matter. That's where I think your having the problem, if your PCs aren't taking those skills voluntarily its because you don't reward having them. Its carrot or stick, but in my case I use both.

I resolved this thusly at my table
Cinematic skills (things that can kill you on a single failed roll)
vs.
Non-Cinematic skills (things that wont kill a PC for lack of having and can be helped by taking more time, having someone else help you, creating a situation where you have environmental advantage)

First, for new players in my world, I make sure that certain Cinematic skills are pointed out in their adventuring capacity and not their every day practical role. Climbing, tracking, Stealth, Swimming, Survival, First Aid and combat skills and the like, fit in this category. They are actions that at the end of the day come down to a single pass/fail die roll and you cant do much to help a default attempt (IE take more time, better lighting, etc). Swimming is a big one in my world. I have had many an adventurer drown or nearly drown for not having any swim skill at all. How often does it come up? Frequently enough, outside of a desert type campaign I would consider it at least a quirk if not a minor disad of fear of water to not have swimming. Its a one or the other unless there is legitimately no expectation the char has ever encountered enough free water to submerge in. Terrain 'Survival' of some kind, likewise, I almost killed a party of "City Folk Adventurers" that got lost in a 'Mirkwoods' and couldn't feed or un-lost themselves before they found some civilization.

For a Non-cinematic stuff I dont force chars to take a set amount of everyman skills though I do require at least 2 "NON-combat job skills" at a level that can reasonably earn Status0 money or sufficient RP experience and backstory to justify it. I mean everyone has to come from somewhere and getting to adventuring age in a "TL4+" setting means having learned something to justify feeding you. One at minimum skill 14 and a supporting skill at minimum 12 is all I require, after that the player is free to choose.

I'll give you some non-cinematic skill examples as a sort of baseline. Cooking, Gardening, Sewing, Housekeeping, Farming, Animal Handling, Animal Husbandry, Riding, Teamster, Carpentry, Masonry, Leather work, Weather Sense, Area Knowledge, Hiking, Games, Merchant, Singing, religion .... All these skills could be legitimately expected to be in a "Pre-Modern" non-city person in some quantifiable manner. Men would be expected to at least have a basic ability to care for themselves (sewing, cooking), women would have to know how to help around a farm/business in case of illness, absence or death (Farming, animal handling). I dont think any one would disagree with that basic precept.

Cooking is a convenience and character flavor for my adventurers. If no one has it, the party will get some miserable rations and I will push small morale type penalties for the general miserable nature of their existence till its resolved (permanently or temporarily). I wont kill players for lack of a cooking skill, unless its uniquely thematic to a situation. Sewing likewise, if no one in the party has the skill at all, you will eventually get a minor reaction adjustment for looking like a bachelor/farmer/adventurer/bum that doesnt have a mother/sister/money to have their garments properly mended. No adventurer ever died from an undarned sock or a hole in a cloak :) hehheh.

Where it gets out of game and into simulation is when trying to realistically quantify Non-Cinematic skills for game play. I ran into this with my idea of a real "Every Peasant" template, where I was trying to show the difference between a 40pt peasant and a 150pt starting adventurer. The problem is that a peasant isnt an adventurer, but they do have to keep themselves and their loved ones alive and hopefully have some good times along the way.

I did the exercise in an attempt to show that 150pts can be incredibly exceptional depending on the baseline of the world. The problem is when you really consider it (as you have quite ably shown) the time spent those skills are obviously more than a 40pt char could achieve but these are largely all Non-Cinematic skills IMO and thus become handwavy for Game play NPCs.

At this point you end up in the debate about what does "Default" vs. 1pt vs. expert really mean in real terms. While I can quantify it for my setting, it may be completely different that what you come up with for your setting and for the purpose of Game play unnecessary for the players to have fun.

I don't think I would use your mechanic if for no other reason I would have to completely adjust my points baseline which would skew my whole world in terms of managing NPC encounters. Also I would have a hard time adding in all the RP/game play reasons for players to have to have all that stuff on their character sheets.