An idea from another game

[Edman]

I've played a Swedish game called Matiné a lot. I don't like the basic premise, but when tweaked it works pretty damn well... most of the time. However, one of the more central assumptions is that you only pay points for ways you actually solve problems. A character might be a great singer, but he need not put points in a Sing skill. He can still sing really well, but he cannot solve a problem by, for instance, performing. There is also a corresponding contract with the GM - if you pay points in the Sing skill, then there will be times when it will prove useful. Maybe you could find an artifact that would let you amplify your voice, and attack with that. Maybe your singing skills will allow you to gain access to the ducal palace. You might even get clues to realize that the answer to an age-old riddle is hidden in a well-known children's song.

Would this be transportable to GURPS? You can still know things, without needing to buy them as skills, and if you do buy them as skills, the GM has to create situations where they come up.

[vicky_molokh]

GURPS does not give stuff for free, usually. Now, maybe you can allow a Perk that will grant huge bonuses to a skill under absolutely useless circumstances. Think the Hyperspecialisation perk and whatever perk means 'the world recognises you as a great X' from the Pyramids.

[copeab]

The problem is that any skill on a character's sheet is potentially useful, even if only once in a campaign.

[Edman]

Originally Posted by copeab

The problem is that any skill on a character's sheet is potentially useful, even if only once in a campaign.

Hence the social contract between a GM and a player. If one of my characters wanted to play a Casanova he could, but he wouldn't be able to seduce the information out of an important NPC. She (or he) might react to him with desire, but never act on it, and the player would not be allowed to argue about it, because he didn't pay points for it.

[copeab]

Just a thought ... why would a player want a skill they can't actually use to influence events in the game world?

[Goober4473]

Originally Posted by copeab

Just a thought ... why would a player want a skill they can't actually use to influence events in the game world?

Pure flavor, I'd assume.

Imagine this situation: The characters are sitting around a tavern in a fantasy game. One of them decides to stand up on the table and sing a song, for no mechanical benefit (no one is going to get a reaction bonus, no one is getting paid, etc.). Oh wait, he doesn't have the Singing skill, but the player wants the character to be good at singing. You could say, "you should have paid poitns for that, then," but if it would be an utter waste of points and take away from useful abilities, why would the player want to do that? You could then say, "then don't be good at useless stuff if you don't want to spend points," but that could make characters boring.

I like this idea. Obviously, a skill like Singing could come up and be useful, but the idea of the contract with the GM takes away any problem with that. If you don't pay points, you don't get benefits for it, but you can still claim your character is good at something to preserve realism.

[Edman]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

GURPS does not give stuff for free, usually. Now, maybe you can allow a Perk that will grant huge bonuses to a skill under absolutely useless circumstances. Think the Hyperspecialisation perk and whatever perk means 'the world recognises you as a great X' from the Pyramids.

Oh, of course, but is that just how GURPS is played, or an integral part of the system? Would it be a different system if your character would actually have the skills Housekeeping, Connoisseur: Flatulists and Dreaming without paying points for them? I know I don't mind if my players' characters are assumed to have the background skills they want, as long as having those skills don't come into play.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Edman

Oh, of course, but is that just how GURPS is played, or an integral part of the system? Would it be a different system if your character would actually have the skills Housekeeping, Connoisseur: Flatulists and Dreaming without paying points for them? I know I don't mind if my players' characters are assumed to have the background skills they want, as long as having those skills don't come into play.

I suppose it's sort of viable for obscure skills like some Connoisseurs or Dreaming. Anything as useful as Housekeeping will look weird if it's on the sheet but can not be used on an adventure.

Now, I'm totally okay with a leveled Perk that adds +2 to +4 per level for 'useless' skill rolls. +4 if it's just there to claim that you're one of the world's most impressive X-skillers, or +2 if it actually adds to things like Job rolls, complimentary skill rolls for impressing people and the like, but not for the primary use of the skill.

E.g.
Singing that only works on non-competitive Karaoke is probably okay at +4/level. If it works for Job rolls and singing competitions that have little to no effect on the primary and secondary plot, +4/level looks okay. If it can be used for Bardic Skills somehow, or for attuning to an alien artifcat, then no way.

Sex Appeal. A bonus to impress nameless NPCs who never provide any sort of aid or information. +2 if somebody can be impressed by your ability to maintain a hunk/gal in every port and thinks it makes you cool. +4 if it's only there as an Informed Attribute that gets mentioned from time to time but changes nothing else.

Such perks really occupy a niche similar to that of 0-Point Special Effects (from Powers) and Shticks.

[Dusqune]

Originally Posted by copeab

Just a thought ... why would a player want a skill they can't actually use to influence events in the game world?

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

If you're going to argue that Singing is useless here because there's no mechanical benefit, you also have to ask why (a) the player is wasting everyone's time with a useless action, and (b) why the player would care whether or not he's successful in such a pointless, meaningless, waste of time. There's no game-mechanical benefit for being bad at it, either, so why worry?

These. If the character really wants to get up on that table and sing well, the GM can make a roll behind a screen, smile, ignore the results, and say "Yeah, you impress your friends and you all have a great night." or whatever. Or he can make you roll agaisnt the default. Personally, as a GM, if you declare you do something, it will probably have some impact in the game. For example, when you meet the person you are supposed to be helping as part of the main adventure, he might go, "Oh, gosh, it's you?" with a good or bad inflection based on how good/charismatic//bad/obnoxious you were with your singing, because he happened to be there that night. IMO, if we start narrating the daily parts of our lives that have no impact on the game, then we might as well go play the Sims (which is a good game, not meaning to bash, here).

At the same time, I know trying to stat myself out as a GURPS character I kept racking up my point total because I had little skills everywhere* (or maybe just some sort of Gaming! skill... idk, expensive either way). So...

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

In RL, GMs aren't polymaths.

...apparantly I need to quit GM'ing. ;P


*You may say this is high IQ. I counter with the fact that I am pretty terrible socially, so either I have lots of points in skills or I have high IQ and seven levels of shyness... either way, it's a lot of points for a bunch of stuff that would not be cp-efficient for an adventurer.

[GodBeastX]

Noted that I didn't read every post, but I tend to view skills based on difficulty and other facets. For example, cooking skill. Can you boil water and make pasta without it? Yes. Driving skill, can you commute to work without it? Yes.

It's usually the stressful or difficult situations where the skill roll comes into play. Take cooking for example:

This is the skill of being a chef – you do not need it to heat water and open boxes, or to cook rat-on-a-stick over your campfire. A successful skill roll allows you to prepare a pleasing meal.

So I tend to look at skill as something that sets you above those status quo around you. A person with voice advantage and such probably has a great singing voice, but does that make you a performer? I think anyone who gets in front of an audience would probably tell you about how poorly their first performances probably went.

Modifiers are an important part of GURPS that I think get overlooked sometimes in my experience (Probably not everyone's), and I use them heavily. Singing for your friends might be +5 modifier. They already like you and probably want to support you. Imagine all the people who show up for talent contests with their friends going "OH YEAH! THEY SING GREAT!" and they don't sound good at all.

It's really how you want to manage it as a GM. This blurb in the campaigns book puts it best.

To avoid bogging down the game in endless die rolls, the GM should only require a success roll if there is a chance of meaningful failure or gainful success. In particular, the GM should require success rolls when . . .

• A PC’s health, wealth, friends, reputation, or equipment are at risk. This includes chases, combat (even if the target is stationary and at point-blank range!), espionage, thievery, and similar “adventuring” activities.

• A PC stands to gain allies, information, new abilities, social standing,
or wealth.

The GM should not require rolls for . . .

• Utterly trivial tasks, such as crossing the street, driving into town, feeding the dog, finding the corner store, or turning on the computer.

• Daily work at a mundane, nonadventuring job.

There's a lot of times you can just assume everything goes well.