Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

Since I had been rereading the recent ALternate GURPS pyramid articles, I had been looking at the defaults based on halved attributes and such quite a bit and also at the buckets of points.

The bottom line seems to be: Even the GURPS staff does not really like the high attributes VS high skill thing.

WIth GURPS having really a lot of skills, by definition, there always WILL be point where one point of attribute X gets you more than one points in Y skills each.
Other mostly linear cost systems do have similar issues admittedly though.
For example, the newest World of Darkness iteration has skill cost only half as much as attributes (But both are limited for most character to 5 dots and there are 9 attributes VS 24 skills with no universal corellation between skill and attribute).

I did not like the buckets of points approach to skill VS attribute balance much (it basically just restricts player show to spend points with unfavourable exchange rates for some extra flexibility) and the half attribute concept, while being nice, does change a lot overall (It basically makes the "skill portion" of attributes cost double) and creates a quite different approach to Attibute roll VS skill roll which I worry about a bit.

So, I wanted to present one little idea that tries to address the issue but tries to stay more in the current frame of cost and balance.

My idea is, for every skill that is based on a certain attribute, if you have a skill you invested more points into, half the cost of buying that skill.
As an example, if you have Acrobatics at DX +2 [12] then buying Boadsword DX+2 would only be 4 instead of 8 points.

If usually buying more than four DX or IQ skills past the point where it is 4 points per level is inefficient, this would shift that point to eight skills (4+2+2+2+2+2+2+2=18).
If further levels of broad competence are needed, one could divide costs by four when having 3 higher skills.
This would give (4+2+2+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=19) for 14 skills.

Basically, this would be similar to getting advantages cheap through alternative abilities and it may make the untalented but skilled character much more viable.

It is some extra book keeping, but a simple asterisk or such in the skill cost box could be enough to indicate if it is a "half price skill" (with two for a quarter price skill) which would then render it quite more manageable.

The only caveat I might include include is that ritual path magic and similar skill based systems should either use their own category (DX, IQ, HT, magic system a, psionic skills, etc.) or not benefit from it at all.

What are your takes on this idea?

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

Sounds rather inelegant. Cleaner to just halve the cost of all Skills.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

Halving skill costs would just make it too cheap though.
The goal is to make broad competence without high attributes a bit more feasible, not to make specialization cheaper.

Basically, the idea is that you just pay the price for specialization once and then get exceedingly cheaper skills.

The purpose is to make it more appealing to have many skills at a good level instead of the current model where talents or attributes are the way to go.
Conversely, wildcardskills should likely be less expensive in this system (as 12 points would already give you 5 / 7 skills raised once the cost reaches 4 per level instead of three as it currently stands).

I would likely change it to making wildcardskills not always be considered VH skills to compensate (based on highest / average difficulty instead)

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

This is somewhat reminiscent of an idea I had after reading the By Default article. That article addressed the problem that the concept of the character who is extremely skilled through training and effort (skill points) rather than from natural aptitude (high DX/IQ) is extremely point inefficient... by making the character who is extremely skilled from natural aptitude (high DX/IQ) extremely point inefficient.

My own idea is rather simplistic and probably wouldn't be terribly difficult to put into practice - a character who reaches the point where it would be more efficient to purchase a trait than increase skills can instead opt to purchase a "virtual talent" (with no reaction bonus or decrease in training times) that costs as much as the trait (and doesn't apply to Disadvantage limits, like DX! and IQ!) and increases all skills based on it. This functions exactly like investing skill points, and in terms of fluff represents training rather than natural aptitude. The benefit over increasing the trait is that the character has a higher relative skill level (useful when you need to float to another attribute), the disadvantage is that it doesn't apply to rolls against that trait, and isn't useful when a different skill gets floated to that attribute. The trait also doesn't improve defaults at all - although once you've invested points in the skill, you get the benefit (so your face-man isn't automatically a skilled medic, but is if he's at least a Dabbler in the skill). Call the trait Training (Attribute) and you're good to go. If using this option with templates (such as in Dungeon Fantasy), allow players to use it to modify said templates' attributes (so a Knight with DX 10 and Training (DX) 4 [60] would be a legitimate option, although you'll probably have to buy BS up to 6.00 [5] to keep with the template).
Note I've never tried to playtest this, and it was just something in the back of my mind before I started writing, so it could be problematic. I don't really see how, however - at least not when compared to the way things work already.

I think your idea may do something similar, but as The Benj notes, it is rather inelegant - which also makes it difficult to determine exactly what sort of effect it would have.

The other problem the article addressed was that of characters with extremely high attributes getting overly-generous defaults. I'd personally be willing to use half-stat for defaults, but have no problem whatsoever with going back to the normal progression once the character has invested points in a skill - my own (admittedly limited) experience with people with high DX and IQ is that they're often able to get to professional level (or very near it) very quickly.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

I have been thinking about a different approach to deal with the disparity between attributes and skills. All the methods I see deal with point costs, instead I am looking at the mechanics of skills and I think I have found a better way.

There are rules to decrease the difficulty of a skill by specialising in a smaller area, physics iq/h becomes physics (nuclear) iq/a. The same mechanics can be used going the other way, fast talk iq/a, disguise iq/a and acting iq/a become deception iq/h.

So now a character who is broadly skilled in one area can make a broader skill almost a wildcard skill to represent their aptitude without having to buy up iq so much they tread on the toes of the true generalist.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

That one is nice, I had pondered something similar, especially for cases like Survival (which is always specfic unlike other skills, say, naturalist, who are not).

This might demand quite some overhauling of the whole skill system, which, however, I think would be good, the system really is the one area that is most in need of a good revision.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

I'm not sure that's really a solid takeaway... :-)

Rather, we (and certainly I, when selecting those articles) recognize that different players and groups are trying to accomplish different things. It's the same way how some groups want combat to be deadlier, and others want it to be more cinematically survivable; the fact we provide rules allowing for both possibilities doesn't mean we favor any particular style of play, from a design/support standpoint.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

I'm on the opposite fence. I actually like attributes going up instead of 20 skills. At what point does your brain just get better or you just become more refined? if you got 20 points in skills, that's 4000 hours of training... shouldn't your dexterity improve by then?

To me people shouldn't have endless amounts of skills, they should have attributes.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

I'm usually pretty happy for a character to trade in skill points for attribute points for the sake of tidiness, but I make sure to remind them of the way skills can work with different attributes.
Trimming the skill list also helps keep the ratio under control.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

I somewhat agree. The playtesters and writers had quite the argument when GURPS Special Ops was in the development . . . One side would say, "Giving these guys crazy-high DX and IQ isn't how it works. They train at specific tasks." Then the other faction would say, "They train constantly at things that rely on judgment and reflexes. Those are best seen as general goals complemented with some specific trained applications." Nobody won, but I was in the second group.

That said, there might be merit in a system that divorces skills from attributes more. If all skills for everybody were priced a little cheaper than they are now (say, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, . . .) but based on 10 + Talent, and high DX, IQ, or HT gave a small bonus to specific tasks for skills (say, ±1 per two full levels different from 10), things would be less attribute-dependent. That isn't necessarily a good system, just an example of something you could do to change the balance a little. You could just as easily go with skills that cost 1 point per +1 to a base of 10, but once the level exceeds the controlling attribute, the price of each +1 doubles: 2 points to go from DX to DX+1, 4 points to go from DX+1 to DX+2, 8 points to go from DX+2 to DX+3, 16 points to go from DX+3 to DX+4. There are lots of possibilities, most of them bad but some of them worth exploring.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

Sounds like an article for Alternate GURPS IV... :)

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

You can't fix this without drastically changing the skill system so that there is a difference between DX10+skill at DX+4 and DX14+skill at DX.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

To be fair, there already are some differences. For unarmed combat skills, I think all of them see better damage above skill at DX. With Weapon Master, higher relative skill also gives better damage (and it isn't much of a change to require skill at DX+1 or DX+2 to get the full damage on the weapon table anyway). Applying the Trained ST progression from Technical Grappling can also make high relative skill important. If enforcing Perk limits, higher relative skill means more points invested, thus allowing for more Perks related to that skill. More points also means more Familiarities - the higher your relative skill, the more likely you'll be able to use a new piece of equipment at full skill without penalties. Finally, there's always the possibility of needing to "float" a skill over to another attribute - when a DX 15, IQ 10 Swashbuckler with Lockpicking at DX comes across a puzzle lock (requiring a roll against IQ-based Lockpicking), he's going to be at a relative -5.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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.

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.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

Well, if you combine Half-Stat Defaulting with the Rule of 20, you get a system where stats stop adding to skill at 20.

In HSD, skill progression is based off Default+X. The highest possible default is 10+Y, with Y being a positive or negative modifier based on how hard the skill is.

So once your stats hit 20, the only way up is to invest in skills, talents and techniques. I consider this a feature.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

Okay - I typed out a lot of logical assumptions and breakdowns, and got another very long post... then lost it all. So I'll sum up with this rewrite:

The problem is not simply that Skills cost too much, specialisation works fine and at low Attribute levels no cracks can be seen. The issue is that raising the cost of many skills costs too much when compared to the cost of simply raising the controlling Attribute.

Equally, the problem is not that Attributes cost too little, they affect many other things than Skills, and there are many other reasons to improve them into 'excessive' levels. The issue is that they're commonly available to everyone and their limits combined with minimal (and cheap) investment into Skills produces insanely illogical expertise in whole swaths of generalist fields.

A solution that is both quick, easy, and directly addresses this is almost already in Basic Set. Defaults cannot exceed a set point regardless of how high the Attribute its based on is, namely, they assume any Attribute higher than 20 is just 20. The solution is simply to apply the same notion to all Skills.
Done.
GM's may wish to push this number as low as 15 or as high as 30, depending on the setting - but simply capping the contribution of an Attribute forces you to invest in Skills once that cap has been met.

A slightly more complex alternative, which might be fairer and more realistic, is that after you reach said cap - every level either grants a free level of a single Talent of your choice, or allows you to more easily train into one (if you use training etc). This lets you specialise into a field of excellence, but prevents you from running amok with insane proficiency in almost half of the skills linked to your amazingly high Attribute. Your GM may have to make a number of new Talents to fit this bill, in which case I suggest grabbing a copy of Power-Ups 3: Talents, its awesome.

Honestly though, its easy enough to fix if a GM discourages it and offers suitable Talents for individuals who wish to have a wider range of 'specialisation'. The tools are already out there to fix this 'issue' - but sticking a cap on your Attributes might incline your players (and the GM) towards using them a little more.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

I take the listed attributes as suggestions. The only time it's really worth noting the "standard" sum is for Parry, I think.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

I have thought about this for many a long year, and the fix I came up with is relatively simple for the plain reason that I am incredibly lazy. It may have its own cracks and weaknesses (e.g. cost of characters increases quite a bit), but it's worked pretty well for me so far.

Trained skills are no longer directly linked to attributes. Untrained default levels for skills are the relevant statistic minus 4 for Easy skills, 6 for Average skills, 8 for Hard skills, and 10 for Very Hard skills, with a normal maximum level of 12 (Easy), 10 (Average), 8 (Hard), or 6 (Very Hard). Attribute modifiers to skills are included in these numbers and are not added separately, but bonuses given by advantages (such as Talent) can raise a person’s default skill level over this maximum. In this way, it is possible for an untrained character with high relevant stats to have a skill ability greater than that of someone just beginning their training, but this ability will include bad habits that will have to be unlearned when formal training begins, and only an extremely rare natural talent will even be able to approach the skill level of someone with a lot of proper training. Default levels in a skill that end up being below three are treated as having no default for that character.

I then have trained skill be based just on the points invested in skills, with arbitrary skills values set for one point (lower for harder skills, higher for easy skills) but have a range of skill modifiers based on the relevant attribute, ranging from -2 to +2. Easy skills get a higher modifier earlier than harder skills. If you float the skill, you use the appropriate new attribute modifier instead.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

If the problem is that a lot of training in many skills is much less point inefficient than extremely high attributes while such training is more common than extremely high attributes in the setting (Kromm gave such an example from the development of GURPS Special Ops), then there is already a solution in the Basic Set.

Giving an Unusual Background cost for high attributes would make the most point efficent builds more realistic in that sense.

The same can be done for when a lot of points are spent on a single skill. That could make it so that the most point efficent build for reaching a very high level in one skill is to have both a high attribute and a lot of training (just like what is the case in the real world for those who are extremely skilled).

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

Slight note: "The GURPS Staff" is Sean, Jason, and Steven.

I think it's more accurate to say that "those who write for GURPS see certain common threads on the forums by a vocal few, and have written some articles to address their concerns."

(Edit: Should have figured I'd be totally ninja'd by Steven early on)

I'm actually fine with defaulting mostly as-is, even though I wrote half-stat defaults and have used it in play. It really only has a big impact on characters with very high stats and games where niche protection is very valuable.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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).

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.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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".

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

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.)

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

Exponential is almost certainly overkill, yes. There are other non-linear options.

I do think part of the way forward, for GURPS, is to formally and explicitly reduce Human variety, so that superHuman is defined to start not at DX/IQ 21 but at something like DX/IQ 16.

And keep in mind, I'm talking about a change to the character creation rules, not a change specifically to the player character creation rules.

(HT might well benefit from a similar reduction in variety span.)

In Ars Magica, characters are always entitled to a bee so-called Specialization for any skill they've learned, a narrower purpose, a subset of total skill usage, for which the skill functions as 1 higher. I found that to appear to greatly aid characterization and individuality, when I bought and read my first Ars Magica supplement, "Medieval Tapestry", and so I decided to use the same principle in Sagatafl.

GURPS uses a different skill scale, where skills don't start from zero, and furthermore where a +1 bonus is not so meaningful. But if one wanted to encourage the putting CPs into skills, one could say that any character gets a free +2 specialization once he has put 8 CP into a skill. Possibly even a 2nd one at 20 CP although I'd advise caution here, simply for reasons of character sheet space and readability.

A specialization can be anything that isn't the core use of the skill, for instance generic attacking isn't a valid specialization for a weapon skill, but generic parry might be. A particular form of attacking could also be, such as one form of All-Out-Attack or possibly even all forms. Or any attack that requires expenditure of Extra Effort FP.

The downside of that is that it creates a break point that players will want to reach, but then once they've reached it, they don't have much incentive to continue going further.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

The real downside is that it would impose even more detail where it isn't necessarily needed. GURPS already has hundreds of Skills, so insisting on specialisations just further bloats that effective number.

Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
 

-snip-All I can really say is that if you like it, use it. I’m not fond of the idea, in no small part because of the implications it has for Improvement Through Study: if you’re going to provide a bulk purchase discount for skills, you really ought to have an explanation why learning two skills takes considerably less than twice as long as learning one skill does. It also makes Techniques even less cost-efficient than they currently are; and Techniques are already problematic in that regard. Why buy up a Technique for one point per +1 once you can buy up an entire skill for one point per +1?

I do think that such a bulk discount is sometimes warranted; but that’s when you’ve got a set of related skills, such that facts and/or muscle memory learned for one of them carries over to the others. For that sort of solution, you should look at Talents for inspiration; for instance, I’ve used a house rule that re-envisions the concept of Wildcard Skills as “bulk costs for sets of interrelated skills”: determine whether the set of skills is narrow (equivalent in scope to a 5-point Talent), standard (comparable to a 10-point Talent), or broad (comparable t a 15-point Talent), then buy the Wildcard Skill with a cost multiplier of ×2 if narrow, ×3 if standard, or ×4 if broad. From that point on, the usual Wildcard Skills rules apply.

To give Techniques a reasonable price, one option is to say that a single point is enough to raise it from its minimum to its maximum (or by +3 if it doesn’t have a maximum). This makes Techniques much faster to improve than is currently the case; but IMHO, they should be much easier to learn than they are. If I was willing to engage in fractional point accounting, I’d divide the cost of Techniques by five.