GURPS Power-Ups 10: Skill Trees

[Professor Phobos]

I would be curious to see what an iteration of this system looks like without having to work within the confines of the existing GURPS skill list.

For example it seemed like there was a whole set of exceptions devoted to "Electronics Operation" as a special case and, well, maybe that skill doesn't need to exist in its problematic form and the special case rules for it can be cut.

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Kromm

This supplement is tightly written due to price-point constraints, so a lot of things won't be obvious at first. However, it exists to address many, mostly unrelated complaints that I've received about GURPS over the years:

• The overwhelming top-heaviness of attributes. This leads to minimaxing to optimize skills under the assumption that the GM will rarely or never base a roll on anything but a controlling attribute, which in turn leads to cinematic competence in non-cinematic campaigns ("I am a great scientist, so I am also awesome at social skills and art, and am strong willed and hyper-alert."). So, I made attributes less useful than skills for specific competence at a given point cost.
  
  
• The presence of Talents and wildcard skills and grouped skills and specialties and techniques and . . ., seemingly uncoordinated, to cover various degrees of general and specialized competence. So, I unified the lot, and in the process reduced the likely number of things written on a typical character sheet (possibly to something like "Thief 10" in some cases).
  
  
• The insanity of default webs. Those who love it, love it a lot! But everybody else is asking enough questions to merit their own FAQ. After encumbrance, defaults are among the rules most often killed by GMs. So, I made being good at related things innate and advised the GM to be flexible.
  
  
• The very existence of skill difficulties. They seem goofy to many people, and clutter character sheets. Why not just call some tasks harder than others? So, I got rid of difficulties and made modifiers, which need to exist in any event, more important.
  
  
• The 4-level jump from 0 points to 1 point on the Skill Cost Table. For each person who believes that "a little training goes a long way" is realistic and likes that jump, I have complaints from five people who find the "–" entries on the table confusing, unrealistic, or both. So, I got rid of the jump.

. . . plus some minor stuff, like acknowledging Unarmed Grappling and Unarmed Striking as a better way to treat unarmed skills relative to Melee Weapon skills, and getting rid of the especially goofy Average/Hard division for techniques, which is arbitrary anyway if you know how techniques are designed.

Veterans gamers might not agree with any of this! I understand that. But if you want to lower the barrier to comprehension for new players, you might – even as a veteran – consider using this system.

I was starting to see how my posts on the points cost was maybe scaring some potential buyers away, so I was writing a response to say "despite all my recent posts of point costs difference, that shouldn't be looked at as a downside to Skill Trees. It's just a different system with different points costs, but it comes with many other benefits." Kromm's posts summarizes all of those benefits much better than my ramblings did.

Sure, I have focused on the last bullets in my recent posts not because I objected to it - I'm actually agreeing with it in principal - but because I was looking at a way of possibly making the point costs more equivalent between the two systems. Re-instating the jump in skill level is really the only way to better align point costs.

But making the points match is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction personal preference (an illusion of "if it costs the same, then the changes are minor"). The points don't have to equal out as they are two different systems. Still, I want to understand exactly how the point cost differs so as to better set up character creation for my games. All my posts - and possible tweaks to using that skill progression gap - are just about sharing what I've learned while doing it; they're not meant to be a criticism, just a observable fact.

And when you really start digging into it, the rule changes are indeed minor (even if the cost implications are not). The changes in explanation as to how it all works are significant, but you can quickly see where all of its pieces would fit in the current system (e.g., the fact that Branches are roughly the equivalent of Skills). It's not hard to steal pieces of the Skill Trees system and add those pieces into GURPS, thus minimizing impacts to your game, even if you don't use the entirety of Skill Trees.

The fact that I'm even posting on this product and delving into the details so soon after release is probably a good sign of how much I like Skill Trees. It's not intended to be interpreted as a complaint about it. (full disclaimer: I'm one of those rule-hackers this was probably written for.)

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Kromm

This supplement is tightly written due to price-point constraints, so a lot of things won't be obvious at first. However, it exists to address many, mostly unrelated complaints that I've received about GURPS over the years:

• The overwhelming top-heaviness of attributes. This leads to minimaxing to optimize skills under the assumption that the GM will rarely or never base a roll on anything but a controlling attribute, which in turn leads to cinematic competence in non-cinematic campaigns ("I am a great scientist, so I am also awesome at social skills and art, and am strong willed and hyper-alert."). So, I made attributes less useful than skills for specific competence at a given point cost.
  
  
• The presence of Talents and wildcard skills and grouped skills and specialties and techniques and . . ., seemingly uncoordinated, to cover various degrees of general and specialized competence. So, I unified the lot, and in the process reduced the likely number of things written on a typical character sheet (possibly to something like "Thief 10" in some cases).
  
  
• The insanity of default webs. Those who love it, love it a lot! But everybody else is asking enough questions to merit their own FAQ. After encumbrance, defaults are among the rules most often killed by GMs. So, I made being good at related things innate and advised the GM to be flexible.
  
  
• The very existence of skill difficulties. They seem goofy to many people, and clutter character sheets. Why not just call some tasks harder than others? So, I got rid of difficulties and made modifiers, which need to exist in any event, more important.
  
  
• The 4-level jump from 0 points to 1 point on the Skill Cost Table. For each person who believes that "a little training goes a long way" is realistic and likes that jump, I have complaints from five people who find the "–" entries on the table confusing, unrealistic, or both. So, I got rid of the jump.

. . . plus some minor stuff, like acknowledging Unarmed Grappling and Unarmed Striking as a better way to treat unarmed skills relative to Melee Weapon skills, and getting rid of the especially goofy Average/Hard division for techniques, which is arbitrary anyway if you know how techniques are designed.

Veterans gamers might not agree with any of this! I understand that. But if you want to lower the barrier to comprehension for new players, you might – even as a veteran – consider using this system.

I really appreciate all the work that you put into Skill Trees, and that you've both shown your work and explained your motives.

And while I love most of what you've done, my own motives are slightly different. In particular, I have always felt that 4e skills and techniques are too expensive; and the "never more than +1 per level" goal conflicts with that.

As well, the way Techniques translate into the Skill Trees system isn't exactly intuitive, and is a bit confusing unless you're already familiar with Techniques from the existing Skill system.

To address this, I'd like to extend the metaphor slightly: alongside Trunks, Branches, Twigs, and Leaves, you have Roots. For the most part, the Skill Trees deal mostly with that part of the Tree that's above ground: the bonuses provided. Meanwhile, Roots are intended to address what's below ground: that is, penalties. Use the existing rules for Skill Trees whenever you're dealing with a bonus or +0; but use the following Root rules when you're dealing with a penalty:

A Root is an extension of a Trunk, Branch, Twig, or Leaf. It's rated in terms of how much of a penalty you have if you don't buy any levels, as well as a "depth": that is, how many levels it takes to get to the "surface level" of +0. Deep Roots require two levels to reach the surface: the first level halves the penalty, and the second level removes it. Shallow Roots one require one level; and if the Trunk/Branch/Twig/Leaf has no Root, there's no penalty associated with it.

Skills that require training have a Shallow Root with a –5 penalty: one level halves that penalty to –2, and a second level eliminates the penalty entirely, letting you use the skill at +0. This Training Root applies to any Trunk, Branch, Twig, or Leaf that requires extensive training; skills that replace an Attribute roll at no penalty or otherwise can be used without penalty even without points invested in them have no Training Root, and start at +0.

But in addition to that, a Root can represent any penalty, such as Ground Fighting or Kicking. In the old system, these were handled by Techniques; in Skill Trees with Roots, they're usually Roots of Leaves, defining a specific use of a Twig that would normally be penalized: I'd consider translating Average Techniques as Shallow Roots and Hard Techniques as Deep Roots for the most part. You can also cap how many levels can be put into a Root: this cap is usually the same as the Depth of the Root; but there are some that allow for higher caps or no cap at all, letting you develop the Leaf that the Root is attached to after the Root is dealt with (that is, providing a bonus in a situation where you once faced a penalty); and in a few rare cases, you might have a Deep Root that's only allowed one level, halving the penalty but no more. I believe that this may be unique to the Targeted Location Techniques as things stand; but it doesn't have to be unique if you can come up with another Technique-equivalent for which it would make sense.

Roots of Leaves would be used to represent penalties to Branches, Twigs, or maybe even other Leaves; but if you want to represent a penalty to a Trunk, you'd buy it as the Root of a Twig. Other than buying off the untrained penalty, I can't think of any ideas for a Root of a Branch or Trunk, as that would be penalties that apply to all of the uses of that Trunk or Branch. Possibly apply it to a Trunk of a Magic system where "non-mages" cast at a –5 penalty over and above any penalties for not being trained? The level(s?) invested in buying down this second penalty would be equivalent to taking Magery 0.

—————

Now, I'd consider using the concept of Roots even if you don't want to have more than a +1 per level; it nicely encapsulates the notion of buying down penalties. Just remove the Root's Depth as a separate concept, and require one level for every –1 that you eliminate. But I personally intend to never use that option, myself; it makes skills even pricier when one of my goals is to find a way to make them cheaper.

[Refplace]

As noted I plan on giving this a limited test drive by including it in my Star Heist campaign as a SkillSoft. Bascially players can buy a chipslot that includes a a Trunk, Branch, Twig, or Leaf. Also AI tutor programs and a few other things will use it. But the game will continue to use wildcard and regualr skills systems.

So I converted the Starship Crew templates into trunks. I think it needs refining but wanted to show my initial start.
Commander
Responsible for ship and crew.
Main Skills: Leadership, Shiphandling (Starship), Spacer
Other Skills: Administration, Electronics Operation (Comm), Electronics Operation (Sensors), Navigation (Dive), Navigation (Space), Strategy (Space), Free Fall, Piloting (Main), Piloting (Secondary), Vacc Suit.

Engineer
In charge of general maintenance and ship welfare.
Main Skills: Electrician, Electronics Repair (Comm), Electronics Repair (Sensors), Mechanic (FTL Motive System Type), Mechanic (Power Plant Type), Mechanic (STL Motive System Type), and Mechanic (Vehicle Type).
Other Skills: Computer Operation, Engineer (Starships), Scrounging, Spacer. Vacc Suit.

Helmsman
Pilot and navigator.
Main Skills: Navigation (Dive), Navigation (Space), Piloting (Main), Piloting (Secondary), Spacer
Other Skills: Area Knowledge (region of space), Astronomy, Cartography, Electronics Operation (Sensors), Free Fall, Shiphandling (Starship), Vacc Suit.

Loadmaster
Responsible for handling and loading of cargo.
Main Skills: Free Fall, Freight Handling, Spacer, Vacc Suit.
Other Skills: Forced Entry, Climbing, First Aid, Gesture, Scrounging, Search.

Medical Officer
In charge of crew and passenger health.
Main Skills: Diagnosis, Physician, Psychology, Surgery.
Other Skills: Electronics Operation (Medical), Mechanic (Life Support), Pharmacy (Synthetic), Physiology (any).

Operations Officer
General bridge crew, responsible for operations other than captaining and piloting.
Main Skills: Computer Operation, Electronics Operation (Comm), Electronics Operation (Sensors), Electronics Repair (Comm), Electronics Repair (Computers), Electronics Repair (Sensors).
Other Skills: Research, Computer Programming, Diplomacy, and Expert Skill (Computer Security), Cryptography, Vacc Suit.

Steward
Takes care of ships passengers and supplies, including acquiring them.
Main Skills: Diplomacy, Merchant, Savoir-Faire (Servant).
Other Skills: Administration, Connoisseur (any), Cooking, Electronics
Operation (Comm or Media), First Aid, Freight Handling, Housekeeping, Professional Skill (Bartender, Hairdresser, Masseur, etc.), Public Speaking.

Tactical Officer
In charge of ships weapons and defenses.
Main Skills: Gunner (Beam), Leadership, Intelligence Analysis, Strategy (Space), Tactics.
Other Skills: Electronics Operation (Sensors), Expert Skill (Military Science) Spacer, Gunner (any other), Vacc Suit.

[Farmer]

I know it goes against the official line and probably the growing common understanding, but I believe this can run concurrent with normal skills and even Wildcards.

It does require one thing, though: an acceptance that points are the least important thing. If you are OK with that (and if you're not, that's also OK!), then you can look at it like having more than one magic system - there are different ways that PCs or NPCs can learn and develop, and since many NPCs are often (and in my view should be) built along the lines of "Soldier:Spec Ops:Sniper: 16" or similar (i.e. just generate a broad level of expectation as a guide), then Skill Trees could work particularly well, and points are even less important (IMO).

This means you can have both Clustered and Diversified skill sets as best suit the character concept and type. The price difference? It is what it is. I know this won't suit some people, but I also know there are many for whom exact or very close point parity isn't a factor or concern.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Farmer

It does require one thing, though: an acceptance that points are the least important thing.

This is true, and reveals one of the disconnects between Kromm, the GURPS Line Editor, and Kromm, the GURPS GM, which is the subject of most of this post:

As the game's primary developer, I understand that many, perhaps even most customers want me to respect the points system, and that some of them actually care about ±1 point either way (I mean, people do argue about perks and quirks . . .). As a GM, I tend to ignore points, allow things that seem not-broken regardless of their cost, believe that point totals have huge error bars anyway, and consider arguing over rounding or other forms of ±1 point to be daft. So, if your campaign supports "Your character costs whatever, but this seems fine – go ahead," as mine would, then you can mix and match.

Originally Posted by Farmer

you can look at it like having more than one magic system

Good analogy, and it's interesting to note that the many and varied magic systems in GURPS do not prescribe even close to the same point costs for the same effects. This drives some people to state, "Well, if they were all based on advantages, that wouldn't happen." I'd counter with, "Magic based on advantages is one possible system. Magic based on skills is an entirely valid model that better suits many games. And within each category, there's more than one way to arrive at your destination."

But again, see above: I'm under some pressure to pretend to care when – in reality – I'm fond of there being numerous different, often quirky ways to do the same thing, and my natural inclination is not to let point costs get in the way of my fun.

Originally Posted by Farmer

The price difference? It is what it is. I know this won't suit some people, but I also know there are many for whom exact or very close point parity isn't a factor or concern.

The fact that my name keeps showing up on articles in Alternate GURPS issues of Pyramid, and on Power-Ups volumes like this one and Power-Ups 9: Alternate Attributes, is a big hint that I'm more of an "it is what it is" person than a "very close point parity" one. For me, points are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules, and I jump at any chance to throw off the yoke and write crazy stuff that laughs at them (though I do value doing the math and showing my work, so that I know exactly how much pushback to expect from people who don't share my madness, here or at my gaming table).

—

All of which said, please note that my caution against mixing and matching wan't grounded in the worship of point totals, but in something mostly unrelated: GMing overhead.

Having to be conversant in multiple skill systems – standard skills and Talents with all the bells and whistles from Power-Ups 3: Talents, wildcard skills with all the features from Power-Ups 7: Wildcard Skills turned on, and Power-Ups 10: Skill Trees – is asking a lot from the GM. They'll have to vet characters built each way to ensure that they make sense and will do what the player thinks they'll do, even ignoring "game balance" and points. They'll have to know how each system works, assessing special Talent benefits for one person, tracking Wildcard Points for another, and knowing the special cases for skill trees (like what overlaps and when to use 10 + Trunk rolls) for a third. They'll have to make three different flavors of rules calls in play.

So, even if you laugh off points, be sure you want this in your game. "I don't care about points" is an aesthetic consideration. Being able to handle extra systems is a practical one, dependent on your degree of GM fu.

[Kallatari]

FYI, here's a message I sent Kromm concerning duplication in naming of Twigs and Leaves, and his reply, which he said I could share with folks.


My Message: I have a question about Tree Skills and the possible implications of (or just confusion on my part about) the Overlaps rules (p.4), where it says you can add all Trunks, Branches, Twigs, and Leaves that are applicable.

So, let’s look at two different skills in the Skill Tree structure:

Vehicles -> Piloting -> High Performance Airplane -> F18

Repair/Maintenance -> Mechanic -> High Performance Airplane -> F18

Both branches have High Performance Airplane as a Twig (i.e., formerly specializations of the respective skills). Are these the same exact same Twig or are they two different Twigs that happen to have the same name? Phrased another way, if I improve High Performance Airplane to +4, does that increase both my Piloting and Mechanic by +4?

Up until just recently, I had assumed that they were completely different Twigs with the same name, and improving one had no effect on the other. But when you read Overlaps, when it says you can add all Twigs that apply, do that mean you can grab a Twig that’s normally from a different Branch if you can justify why it applies… and would that not therefore mean that you may as well only get a single High Performance Airplane (using this example) Twig because you can easily justify why it applies to either Branch, making it a single Twig?

On the other hand, the improvement of Trunks, Branches, Twigs, and Leaves lets you trade in lower tiers and use the points for a higher tier that encompasses them. So with the first example, you can trade in High Performance Airplane to improve Piloting, because the end result is keeps the same final skill level… unless High Performance Airplane falls under both structures, then it would have the same level for Piloting (which you improved) but you’d lose a level for Mechanic (which you didn’t improve). So that suggests they’re different techniques that are merely similarly named.

So, I thought they were distinct Twigs with the same name, but Overlaps is making me overthink this, so I’d just like to confirm.

Obviously, ditto confusion for F18 Leaf.


Kromm's Reply: With the option for user-defined, campaign-specific Twigs and especially Leaves, name overlaps are inevitable – what else are you going to call the bit that deals with a specific item or situation, whatever you're doing with it? – but these wouldn't be cumulative under the skill-tree rules. I agree that there's room for confusion . . . I guess it forces one to list the Trunk and Branch for clarity even if one has level 0 in those.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As a GM, I tend to ignore points, allow things that seem not-broken regardless of their cost, believe that point totals have huge error bars anyway, and consider arguing over rounding or other forms of ±1 point to be daft.

Wait, you mean to tell me the guy who wrote "Pointless Slaying and Looting" doesn't practice the Holy Rite of Meticulous Point Accounting? Je suis choqué.


Personally, while I tend toward precision in point accounting, I'm more inclined to disregard that for NPC's (unless they're Allies, Enemies, etc... although even then, if I were more experienced with the system I'd be inclined to just eyeball them, particularly considering their point values are up to some percentage of the PC's, not exactly that value). And the Skill Trees system would work great for those characters! I don't need to give this bandit Axe/Mace 14, that one Broadsword 14, this other one Spear 14, etc, and then work out what their combat skill should be if they get disarmed, find themselves in a grapple, break their weapon and pick up another one from a fallen ally, etc. Nope, just give them Melee Weapon 14 and move on - and do the same with Athletics, Sneakiness, etc.

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Vehicles -> Piloting -> High Performance Airplane -> F18

Repair/Maintenance -> Mechanic -> High Performance Airplane -> F18

Probably the easiest way to handle this, if the character has only the Twig and/or Leaf (if they have the Branch or Trunk, simply listing that with the Twig/Leaf after makes it clear), is to use Piloting (High Performance Airplane), Piloting (F18), Mechanic (High Performance Airplane), or Mechanic (F18), as appropriate.

As for using a single Twig/Leaf for two Trunks, when the two Trunks cover rather different things but still have the same name for the Twig/Leaf (Vehicles covers using them, Repair/Maintenance covers repairing and maintaining them), I'd say you could probably get away with doing so if you make it one category higher. That is, you could have an F18 Twig (instead of Leaf) that gives you a bonus for anything you do involving an F18 (piloting, repairing, etc), and/or a High Performance Airplane Branch (instead of Twig) that does the same for any High Performance Airplane. But that might be a bit overly complex, it may be best to just require taking it separately for each Trunk.

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Varyon

That is, you could have an F18 Twig (instead of Leaf) that gives you a bonus for anything you do involving an F18 (piloting, repairing, etc), and/or a High Performance Airplane Branch (instead of Twig) that does the same for any High Performance Airplane.

hmm, that's effectively turning High Performance Airplane into Expert Skill (High Performance Airplane), as Expert Skill is kind of like a floating Branch. So yeah, I could see that working that way for a cross-skill High Performance Airplane instead of the Twig specializations to a single Branch.

[Tyneras]

I love it, and not just because it is very similar to a system I was working on (though I was calling the different categories Themes, Wide, Regular and Narrow skills). One of the reasons I never got that system finished was the rather daunting number of skills GURPS has.

I am a very visual person, this is a quick work up of how I interpret the trees as described: Rough HTML Animal Skill Tree Picture on Imgur

Breadth of coverage and utility is, I think, a far better measure of skill value than difficulty.

I feel a lot of spell colleges could be reinterpreted as a small number of branches and a lot of twigs and leaves.

A hypothetical GURPS 5th edition would benefit from this structure, since that’d give the writers a bit more of a free hand to modify the existing skills to better mesh with it. Though I’d change the naming to simply Skill Tree, Base Skill, Specialization and Hyper Specialization so the concept is directly in the name rather than allegory.

I see what the -5 rule is trying to do, but I still don’t like it. I’d rather adventurers default to +0 and mundane tasks have a large bonus as we do now.

Complementary skills should have to come from a completely separate skill tree, and by their nature would be self limiting as a bonus.

One thing I have wanted to do for a long time is disconnect skills from attributes. The tendency of most builds to boil down to Attribute + Talent + 1 or 2 points in each skill (especially for mages) never sat well with me. But the problem that rose up from trying to do that was the resulting point cost explosion. I think Skill Trees actually make this possible.

Have all skills “default” to 6, and your first level in any skill give you skill 10. Effectively your skill is 9 + trunk + branch + twig + leaf. Attributes in this case would be situationally appropriate complementary skills.

Example: I have a gunslinger with a skill level that is independent of the controlling attribute, effectively flat. The usual modifiers for range and such apply. For normal shooting, roll against DX for the complementary skill bonus. To pick out a target in fog, smoke or dark, roll vs Per, to try to figure out if a historical weapon is a fake, IQ. To win a quickdraw, Speed (times 2).

With this system, all the Attribute + value bonus thresholds would become flat 10 + value. Also DX! and IQ! Would get carved down in value a lot, probably 5 points per level.