The thing between [0] and [1]

[Wicked Lurker]

..or in other words: (how) do you handle people with Skills better than default but worse than [1]* in your games?

*A single point here can make a difference of up to 5 skill levels.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

..or in other words: (how) do you handle people with Skills better than default but worse than [1]* in your games?

*A single point here can make a difference of up to 5 skill levels (at VH Skills).

Well the Background perk I yoinked from Dr. Kromm, a [1] Perk which gives any related skill to the background a +1 to their Defaults [but not trained skills]

[Wicked Lurker]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Well the Background perk I yoinked from Dr. Kromm, a [1] Perk which gives any related skill to the background a +1 to their Defaults [but not trained skills]

Ah, this is definitely very useful.
It can not model someone who has dabbled in a (single) skill for a bit, but does not justify a full point in it though..

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

I'd give them an extra +2 bonus when not in stress, and doing something similar to what they've practiced. Sort of a familiarity thing. In a stressful situation, they'll just have to live with the harsh default.

Hmm.. sounds quite good. It's quite simple and +2 is somewhere in the middle of things.. I'll have to test that one. Not sure if I'd drop the +2 under stress though.

How would you justify this increase then (in bookkeeping terms)?

Originally Posted by Nikolai

There is no very hard skill that has a default of attribute-8.

I just interpolated from the other defaults and didn't actually check- thanks. Strike the "VH".

Originally Posted by Nikolai

Allowing half skill points for a skill level of 2 below that which you get when investing 1 point seems to be a common houserule.
I even allow quarter skill points.

Here's the relevant section from my houserules in German (since if I recall correctly, you're German):

Quite close, I'm Austrian.

Using quarter CPs in connection with 50 hours and -1 to skill level per 0.25 CP below [1] down to default sounds quite good.
Do you use that one in your games? How well does it work?

I am somewhat reluctant to use fractions of points since the 4e completely stays away from that now. Hey, but if it works well I'll use that.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

How would you justify this increase then (in bookkeeping terms)?

Oh, I wouldn't record any of it. It's just something I'd hand out if a player asked for it. As for dropping the bonus under stress, I like to think that 1 point represents precisely that level of training at which you know what to do in a risky situation. Less than that one point, and you have some superficial idea but when it comes time to apply your knowledge, you realize you're not ready.

Personal opinion: I don't like half-points, because there's a slippery slope aspect to them. If I can spend half a point on a skill, can I buy a partial level of Lifting ST, or round a modified advantage's final cost to the nearest half-point, or not drop the fractions from my Basic Move, or spend a half-point on Cultural Familiarity (Chinese) because of all the movies I've seen... I say, forget about it. It's a discrete scale for a reason, to make all our lives easier.

[benz72]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

Oh, I wouldn't record any of it. It's just something I'd hand out if a player asked for it. As for dropping the bonus under stress, I like to think that 1 point represents precisely that level of training at which you know what to do in a risky situation. Less than that one point, and you have some superficial idea but when it comes time to apply your knowledge, you realize you're not ready.

Personal opinion: I don't like half-points, because there's a slippery slope aspect to them. If I can spend half a point on a skill, can I buy a partial level of Lifting ST, or round a modified advantage's final cost to the nearest half-point, or not drop the fractions from my Basic Move, or spend a half-point on Cultural Familiarity (Chinese) because of all the movies I've seen... I say, forget about it. It's a discrete scale for a reason, to make all our lives easier.

Oddly enough I have almost the opposite view, not specifically about fractional points but about fluid scalability in general. Take for example, wealth. In the RAW I generally find it very difficult to get exactly what I want with the current level of granularity. IMHO there ought to be some kind of continuous scale for starting wealth that keeps point cost smoothly in line with $ value. A character who spends 8 points on wealth should be doing pretty well, but not quite up to the 10 point level, and the guy who dropps 12 points on it hsould be getting a few extras. (Yes I know about 1 point starting buys, but if you plot out the $ vs. points it gets pretty ugly). Anyway, there seemed to be a fair bit of that kind of thing in 3e (and not having played in a bit, I'm not as up on GIVE as I'd like to be) such as acute vision vs. bad sight. The positive modifiers are leveled and scalable, the negatives are not. Why? Can't you have somebody with 20/40 who can get by without his glasses (at a -1) but is better with them?
Anyway, my overall point is that from my POV, scalability / continuity / fluidity is good, graininess is not good.

[naloth]

I'ld allow a perk to give a +2 to the default for a group of fairly wide related abilities.

[Gavynn]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

Oh, I wouldn't record any of it. It's just something I'd hand out if a player asked for it. As for dropping the bonus under stress, I like to think that 1 point represents precisely that level of training at which you know what to do in a risky situation. Less than that one point, and you have some superficial idea but when it comes time to apply your knowledge, you realize you're not ready.

This appears to be a reasonable way to handle the situation, but remember that even with just the default of a skill, players not in risky situations can are likely operating in easy (+4 or +5) or very easy (+6 or +7) situation anyway. Not always of course, but it just goes to show that outside of combat (or other risky situation) the default skill maybe more than adequate to accomplish simple tasks.

[Xarxsis]

when our gaming group discovered gurps we took a communal effort to work out the rules, which resulted in an odd interpretation of the skills chapter, giving us the "0 point" level in skills.

this hasnt proved to be unbalancing since our group as a whole makes well rounded characters with only a few skills at this level, it helps define little sub points of characters, and works well in our games.

our house rule works like this

easy - 0 point level = att - 1
average 0 point = att - 2
hard 0 point = att - 3
very hard = no 0 point.

[Nikolai]

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

Using quarter CPs in connection with 50 hours and -1 to skill level per 0.25 CP below [1] down to default sounds quite good.
Do you use that one in your games?

Well, yes, I use everything in my houserules in my campaign... ;-)

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

How well does it work?

It works nicely. The only downside is having to deal with quarter CP. But that doesn't bother me.
It especially comes into play because I often count adventuring time as hours of learning for certain skills (for instance Survival or Hiking) at an appropriate conversion factor. If the PCs didn't have that skill before, they can slowly increase it that way instead of waiting for ages before they have acquired the 200 hours of learning for a full CP.

[JoelSammallahti]

Well, a single point can make the difference between "Attribute+0" and "No Default", even... I haven't run into this problem, but I would say that if someone's received training in a skill, but not enough to justify 1 point, I'd give them an extra +2 bonus when not in stress, and doing something similar to what they've practiced. Sort of a familiarity thing. In a stressful situation, they'll just have to live with the harsh default.

(Not that I don't find the defaults harsh. Consider, for example, how hard it is to whack someone in the head with a hammer from behind, when he's not expecting it, and you have time to prepare - this has come up. Sounds easy, right? If you can hit a nail, you can hit someone's head? Well, you take DX-5 for not having a point in Axe/Mace, another -5 for trying to aim for the head, and you get +3 for evaluating him beforehand and +4 for taking an all-out attack. Congratulations, you're working on DX-3 for that one blow.)