An idea from another game

[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.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Goober4473

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?

Because it may not be an "utter waste of points." The wording above comments that you don't consider social abilities terribly useful.

Sure, if all you're doing is dungeon crawls, and a character wants to sing in a one-off bar scene, then it's probably cool. But, why should your unskilled, untrained fighter be able to perform with the same ability as the bard--who is trained and skilled at singing?

This idea fits pure-cinematic games much better than a game going for any semblance for realism. It's easy to believe that John McClaine is an acomplished ballroom dancer or that John Matrix is an exquisite painter when all we're doing is seeing the characters in a single, specific light. Because, well, let's be honest, those characters are pretty one-dimensional.

The idea would work fine in a campaign like Action, Dungeon Fantasy or possibly even Monster Hunters where the focus is on the action happening and not on the lives surrounding the characters. But, in any game built, with even a little focus, around social interaction the idea jumps out the window, taking a massive chunk of plot with it.

So, for some games, it could be used for one-off, interesting scenes, but for a game that focuses on the characters, it's pretty useless.

[Edman]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Because it may not be an "utter waste of points." The wording above comments that you don't consider social abilities terribly useful.

Sure, if all you're doing is dungeon crawls, and a character wants to sing in a one-off bar scene, then it's probably cool. But, why should your unskilled, untrained fighter be able to perform with the same ability as the bard--who is trained and skilled at singing?

This idea fits pure-cinematic games much better than a game going for any semblance for realism. It's easy to believe that John McClaine is an acomplished ballroom dancer or that John Matrix is an exquisite painter when all we're doing is seeing the characters in a single, specific light. Because, well, let's be honest, those characters are pretty one-dimensional.

The idea would work fine in a campaign like Action, Dungeon Fantasy or possibly even Monster Hunters where the focus is on the action happening and not on the lives surrounding the characters. But, in any game built, with even a little focus, around social interaction the idea jumps out the window, taking a massive chunk of plot with it.

So, for some games, it could be used for one-off, interesting scenes, but for a game that focuses on the characters, it's pretty useless.

But even in such a game, would it be useful? I mean, how often do you have to make a roll to be good at your profession, and would a character who had a profession that required one major skill, like Driving, really be that much more limited than one who needed several (a mechanic, for instance, comes to mind).

[Walrus]

Originally Posted by Goober4473

Oh wait, he doesn't have the Singing skill, but the player wants the character to be good at singing.

You either have Singing skill to be good or don't have it and you aren't good in circumstances where this might matter. But when circumstances doesn't so do you.

You don't need skills for routine tasks. You don't need more than one point in background skills (or even one point for several skills with Dabbler) because they would become primary otherwise.

[Curmudgeon]

Edman

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.

GURPS already partially covers this with default skills costing 0 points. OTOH, one of the basic assumptions in GURPS is that you get what you pay for in terms of a character. So you can have a character who can sing and even be a singer for 0 points; but if you want a great singer, it's going to cost points (for some combination of skill, musical talent, voice advantage and controlling attribute [HT IIRC]).

I can see arguments for and against "the GM has to create situations where they come up." On the one hand, if you paid points for it, situations where it's at least potentially useful ought to come up at least once in a while.

Broadly speaking, there are three kinds of situations where skills are useful.

First, the skill may be directly useful as the solution to the situation, e.g. Guns skill for using a revolver in combat or Chemistry to whip up a needed batch of acid in a chem lab.

Second, it may be useful in providing clues if the player thinks to have the character use the skill, e.g., using a combination of Language: English (Cockney), Language: English (Australian) and Area Knowledge (Rocky Beach, CA) to find the legacy of a will written as a poetic riddle in rhyming slang by a former Australian [the plot of the Three Investigators and The Dead Man's Riddle].

Finally, if knowledge of the skill is thorough enough, the challenge may be getting to the point where you can make use of the skill. E.g., you have the skill Gunner/TL4 and the GM informs you that yes, you could move back out of range of the enemy guns on the wall and still be able to hit them if you increase the powder charge you're using, at the risk of possibly bursting the barrel. Now, all you have to do is move a half ton of metal on a wooden carriage that has no wheels back 100 yards, without having it fall over on its side, get stuck in the mud or catch on a rock projection and set up. Of course, once you've gotten to the new position, the barrel's tilting six inches to the right. If you want to fire the gun as it is, you'll start softening up a new spot on the wall and the recoil will eventually rock the gun over so it ends up laying on its side, unless you move the gun again or spend some time with a pick and shovel making the gun position nice and level, so what are you going to do now? After you've fired a few shots from your nice, level gun position, recoil has moved the gun back six feet, so will you put more elevation on the gun or is somebody going to get on the ropes and drag it forward six feet? Great, the day's getting warmer and there's a nice stiff breeze but it looks like the rounds are hitting lower than they were a half hour ago. Probably a result of the powder being warmer, the air a little less dense and that head wind. Well a little more elevation or a little more powder would probably take care of that. What to do? And it started as such a nice, simple day! (sigh.)

All those examples depend on the GM knowing enough about the skill to create an interesting situation. In RL, GMs aren't polymaths. If a GM is weak in a particular area, say music, players will be discouraged if not outright forbidden from taking musical skills because they're not going to be important in that GM's campaigns. They may appear for colour, (e.g. a group of minstrels is entertaining the court when you enter the hall), but it's expected to remain in the background. If a player insist on taking a point in musical instrument (lute), a point in singing and another point in performing after that warning, I don't think the GM is particularly required to provide the player with situations to use those skills. Without knowledge of the skill, the GM may not be able to do much more than, "You play your lute and sing a popular new song? Make a roll vs. lute and one against singing. Made them both? Fine you didn't make hit any sour notes or stumble over the lyrics. Make a roll vs. performing. Made it by three. Okay, you collected twenty-five silver pennies, more than enough to pay for a meal and a night's lodging at the inn." That's going to get old fast.

If the player is filling the GM in on the nuances of the skill, either the character will be able to handle the situation fairly easily, after all the player effectively planned the situation, so he knows the solution as soon as he recognizes, "Oh, yeah, I told the GM about this last month. I guess he figured it'd come as a surprise to me about now." or the player will be explaining to the GM why he's wrong about how the situation would be resolved.

And, yes, the high scores cost points is not solely the result of the way GURPS is played, it's integral to GURPS as a system. It would be a different system if it gave high skills for free. OTOH, default skills make it possible to know a skill (at a low level) for 0 points and as has been pointed out a Perk (most of which are a point or two) would cover having a high skill in circumstances where it doesn't really matter (possible alternate translation: sure he's good, but he chokes under pressure every single time.)

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

GURPS already partially covers this with default skills costing 0 points. OTOH, one of the basic assumptions in GURPS is that you get what you pay for in terms of a character.

It's also important to realize that GURPS points aren't just about buying the ability to face challenges. They're often as much about buying a share of the spotlight. If you don't charge points, there's little to stop you from saying "I'm going to be a really good singer, but I promise not to 'solve problems' with it" and stealing the thunder from the minstrel who actually did spend points to become a great singer. Also, I would be scratch my head (and lose immersion) if the big dumb fighter can sing great except when trying to get something out of it.

On the other hand, I have no problem with people being creative with the explanation of their skills. If the elf has a beautiful, lilting voice, but the dwarf has a powerful baritone, that's fine to distinguish what their Singing 14 means.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by RyanW

It's also important to realize that GURPS points aren't just about buying the ability to face challenges. They're often as much about buying a share of the spotlight. If you don't charge points, there's little to stop you from saying "I'm going to be a really good singer, but I promise not to 'solve problems' with it" and stealing the thunder from the minstrel who actually did spend points to become a great singer. Also, I would be scratch my head (and lose immersion) if the big dumb fighter can sing great except when trying to get something out of it.

OTOH, I can see a "Stage Fright" limitation on certain skills

[malloyd]

If the contract is the result doesn't affect the game, who cares if you are good or not? You get up on the table and sing. End of scene. You can't be good enough to have impressed anybody - that'd violate the contract. You can't have been bad enough to offend anybody, ditto. There's no reason to *care* if you were good, because per the contract it does not matter.

[dbm]

I can relate to the OP's post and think the idea has value. Other parts of GURPS are based on the principle of utility being the driving value point costs. Advantages and powers seemed to be built off this concept. Treating skills similary would make the system more consistent.

A skill which is highly appropriate to the campaign could be charged at a premium versus a skill with little chance of impacting the game. The difficulty would be that the classification of skills would vary by campaign - broad sword is a great skill at TL3 but fairly redundant at TL8.

Currently skills are classed as Easy > Average > Hard > Very Hard. How about classifying them as Colour > General > Valuable > Highly Valuable or some such?

In a Dungeon Fantasy campaign dancing would be a Colour skill, riding might be a General skill, observation might be a Valuable skill and weapon skills might be Highly Valuable.

In a game of courtly intrigue, climb might be a Colour skill, weapons might be General, dancing might be a Valuable skill and sense motive might be Highly Valuable.

I think this could have legs for an Alternative GURPS article in Pyramid? The GM would need to allocate skills to each classification as part of their campaign design work but some exemplars could be built up.