Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

Do you happen to have a link to that? I'll be playing in a space game soon, and making sure we don't forget to cover something would be nice.

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

Yes. It's a very good thing that GURPS finally got official working-faster rules with the publication of the core 4E books.

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

Taking time is called "Aim" or "Evaluate" as maneuvers.

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

Certainly -- for what it's worth: Design / Repair / Use chart (MS Excel format)

I made this in prep for an GT:ISW game, so it's not all-inclusive. My goal was to make sure I understood which skills matched up with which other ones in the Design / Repair / Use triads.

Changes from RAW include:

- Contragrav and maneuver drives are closely-related tech, so one Gravitics specialty covers both for design and repair

- The "Plant Operation" skill was invented as the skill to run power plants. (Doesn't exist in RAW as far as I could tell.)

- Electronics Operation has a couple of merges: "Security" and "Surveillance" are combined. "Medical" and "Scientific" are combined, along with other unnamed specialties, and dubbed "Application". One skill is sufficient to operate whatever electronic instruments and tools are usual for other skills that you also have (Physician, Astronomy, Archaeology, etc). I'm tempted to do away with this category and just declare that it's part of the other skills.

- Pilot (Jumpspace) is the skill for "using" the jump drive. (RAW has Mechanic (Jump Drive). Pros and cons here related to giving multiple crewmen something to do. I was also trying to complete the the triad.)

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

Thank you :)

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

Looking at my current GURPS campaign's PCs, I see that Bengta Gannet has 4 points each in Leadership, Merchant, Ritual Magic, and Shiphandling (Ship); Hanno has 8 points in Ritual Magic and 4 points each in Diplomacy and Merchant; Kenbash Nergul has 8 points in Leatherworking and 4 points each in Artist (Bone and Ivory), Expert Skill (Thanatology), Gesture, Musical Instrument (Flute), and Observation; Raintooth has 4 points each in Sleight of Hand and Stealth; and Sangmu has 8 points in Ritual Magic and 4 points each in Esoteric Medicine, Knot-Tying, Surgery (Field-Expedient), and Survival (Woodlands). That's not mentioning path and book skills, or cinematic martial arts skills. So it is possible to have players create characters who aren't combat-focused. Hanno, indeed, has almost no combat skills; he has a loyal bodyguard, but he relies primarily on persuasiveness, and secondarily on having a troll and four selkies traveling with him.

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

In my campaign only the full-fledged warriors have high DX-skills. The mundane warrior has spent many points directly on the DX-skills (24pts on his main unarmed combat skill and 8-12pts on ranged weapon skills, Acrobatics, Fast-Draw) while the other two had Talent bonuses.

There's one engineer who has spent alot of points on Talents (Artificer) and an Engineer! (Wildcard skill). He's the one maintining the ship and building his own droids.

Two other have spend the main points on Will-based spells and the appropriate Talents to enhance these.

The group in general has spend some points in Piloting, Electronics Operations (Shields, Sensors), Navigation (Space and Hyperspace) so they can replace each other when someone is too badly hurt to act as a crewmember of their starcruiser.

Lesser used skills are Area Knowledge, Survival, Armoury (as needed).

Because survivability depends alot on high DX combat skills, there are more points spent on these than other attribute-based skills. After a while, Will-based skills (spells) will have more points invested in them because of the the Force users who can (after spending a lot of points to buy-off the limitations on their advantages) now spend points on their Force abilities.

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

It depends entirely on what challenges the GM throws at the players.

In my secret-agents campaign (currently on hiatus), just about all of the NPC foes met in combat are less capable than the PCs. Most are low-skill conscripts or criminal goons, poorly trained fanatics sent forth to sell their lives, or just desperate people snatching up weapons. Besting them almost never relies on outmatching them point-for-point in DX and combat skills – that's a special challenge I pull out once in a rare while, and noteworthy when it happens. The overwhelming majority of conflicts are won by getting the jump on someone via guile or planning. Consequently, the impressive skill levels are in areas like Acting, Camouflage, Fast-Talk, Holdout, Observation, Shadowing, and Tactics. I'll grant that Stealth is pivotal, too, but it's the one exception.

Most of the time in that campaign, however, the PCs aren't fighting – or sneaking using Stealth – at all. They're gathering information via social skills or Interrogation, using surveillance gear with Electronics Operation and Photography, looking for clues with skills like Forensics and Search, or digging around with Research. They're very often messing with specialized gear that calls for Armoury, Computer Programming, Electronics Repair, Mechanic, etc. And of course they're sneaking into places using Lockpicking and Traps. Because so much of the social stuff is resisted while the technical stuff has penalties for either improvised tools or enemy equipment quality, these levels are high.

My experience, then, is that there are campaign types where high IQ and IQ-based skills (and Per and Per-based skills, especially) are more important than high DX and DX-based skills, and where most of the PCs have lots of IQ-based skills at high levels.

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

Absolutely. Thinking a bit more about this, I think the phenomenon I'm experiencing is that characters commonly find that they need enough IQ-based skills at high levels that raising IQ is the economic way to improve. However, the number of DX-based skills for which they need high skill levels is small enough that buying up the skills individually is often cost-effective.

Re: Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills
 

That fits – and it goes double for Per-based skills. High Per is really, really effective for secret agents, who almost always end up with Observation and Search; can find many uses for Body Language, Detect Lies, Lip Reading, Scrounging, Tracking, and Urban Survival; and regularly make Per-based rolls against the likes of Poisons and Traps. Team members who provide DX-based capabilities can usually be described in terms like "the sniper with remarkable Guns (Rifle)" and "the wheel man with impressive Driving (Automobile)." The notable exception in the secret-agents context is the intrusion expert, whose mix of Climbing, Forced Entry, Stealth, etc. with Electronics Operation, Lockpicking, Traps, and the like pushes up both DX and IQ while driving down points in any one skill.