Skills and skill levels for building an army, intelligence service, bureaucracy

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Personally I'd use Administration in the first place for organizational level staffing and Leadership for small team leaders able to choose teamates from a pool. Pyschology might be used as a complimentary skill, I suppose.

Does that "vet" the potentials/applicants thoroughly, for problems and for complications?

[Peter Knutsen]

Just a stray thought I had, that may be helpful to Icelander:

One can try to define a formal system of tiers of an administrative hierarchy, each higher level having more power and therefore needing to be more trustworthy. To borrow a term from a famous UK comedy show, the higher the administrative level we're talking about, the more important t is that the applicant is "sound". I use mostly military terms, but of course it applies to all kinds of organizations.

So:
Minister
General
Captain
Lieutenant
Soldier
Warrant Officer

Minister is the highest level. You're essentially looking for someone to take responsibility for an entire area of endavour, e.g. All Military Matters, or All Public Health.

General is nearly as high, that's a leader of a powerful organization or unit, with vast resources, typically commanding thousands of underlings.

Captain and Lieutenanet are lower sub-divisions of the same.

Soldier is the lowest level, the one who does the actual work, supervised by the higher ups. And of course of you're building a nation-state or leading a huge revolution, or whatever, then you'll be concerned with the higher levels, usually never further down than Captain, and let the leaders you've selected select their own underlings, whereas if you're operating on a much smaller scale, there'll probably be only 1-2 Captains, or perhaps none, and a dozen or so Lieutenants.

Warrant Officer is the odd man out, in that it's a highly skilled individual who has little or no administrative power. A field engineer, for instance, or a physician. They'll often work under a Captain or General, and may in fact be in charge of underlings such as craftsmen or labourers or nurses, but their poltiical and economic power is very limited in nature.

I'm not sure how useful that is. I see it as a "model of thought".

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Does that "vet" the potentials/applicants thoroughly, for problems and for complications?

On a sufficiently good roll, sure. Acting skill might confound it, though, as Administration and Leadership are skill meant to select the best people for jobs assuming that personal conflicts, occasional dishonesty and the desire to appear better that one is all exist, but the people being chosen don't have perverse ulterior motives. People who pretend to be normal employee but are actually treacherous plants would probably still pass muster as 'able and competent' subordinates, unless a seperate roll to see through their act was made.

As such, Administration and Leadership are not the skills necessary for true counter-intelligence. For that, employ people with Accounting, Body Language, Current Affairs, Detect Lie, Interrogation, Intelligence Analysis, Psychology (Applied), Research, Shadowing and other skills.

[fifiste]

What I have had trouble in GURPS is with having a big bunch of suitable skills that can be all useful for a certain task.
For current example finding a good hireling for a post. Lets say we have current affairs, streetwise etc. for knowledge of stories of feats to check out potential candidates. Then psychology and detect lies etc. for personality evaluation and truth-fullness, then your own skills in area to evaluate competence.
Do you fire off rolls for each steps sequentially? Then the more skills you have or use the LESS likely are you to succeed! Make them give bonuses/penalties to subsequent rolls? What if you skip one of them completely?
Or do you require a roll. vs. lowest of skills? What if you don't use then one of those? Coould still be possible to accomplish but at what penalty?
Lot of tasks in real world would require several skill rolls subsequently or concurrently but both rolling several rolls or rolling vs lowest have some troubles. One issue is that oftentimes there are are several options of using skills or not using and they are all penalized in different measures in real life. Sometimes it is impossible to do something without a complementary skill, sometimes it just makes it harder. Sometimes you need to finish something before other step, sometimes it just makes the other step more or less likely to succeed.
Can anybody point out book page numbers or discussions in forums etc. where all the multiple skill rolls and complementary skills etc. stuff has been dealt with.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by fifiste

What I have had trouble in GURPS is with having a big bunch of suitable skills that can be all useful for a certain task.

On general GMing principles, situations will often arise where one out of several skills can be used, but with all of them not being equally suitable. If so, you simply give penalties to the unsuitable ones, say the most suitable one no penalty, a -2 penalty to a fairly suitable one, and a -4 penalty to one that's not very suitable.

Of course, in GURPS you may sometimes don't need to do that, because the skill defaults system already does it for you.

Originally Posted by fifiste

Can anybody point out book page numbers or discussions in forums etc. where all the multiple skill rolls and complementary skills etc. stuff has been dealt with.

There were many oversights in the development process of GURPS 4th Edition, due to clique-based playtester selection, many missed oppurtunities, many worthwhile questions that never got asked, but the greatest of them all is quite probably that the core books do not contain any rules for Complementary Skill Rolls. You'll only find those in an obscure supplement called GURPS Action, published many, many years after the core books.

As for multiple skill rolls, you can't just make that optional on the character level and that's it. Either multiple skill rolls or roll-for-lowest-of are mandatory, forcing those who lack a skill to use default (and being unable to proceed if one of the required skills lacks a default), or else it is something that can be chosen in the given situation and which gives extra benefits on a success.

The later is a bit complicated, and seems to me better handled by some kind of generalized CSR rule, rather than by special case rules design or GM ad hockery. The former, multiple skills, is something I think works best if you opt for the roll-for-lowest-of out of 2 or 3 skills. More than 3 should only ever be used for a character who is trying to do something spectacularly difficult and highly unusual..

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Not much of a reason, but performing a "character evaluation" does seem tricky to me, especially when hiring for critical or semi-critical job positions.

True, but note that Psychology (Applied) is a Hard skill that is apparently fairly rare. And success just means that you'll have a basic idea of the psychological suitability of the candidate, with increasing margin of success giving you more details. Of course, any attempt by the recruit to delibarately deceive* you will mean a Quick Contest instead of an unmodified roll.

Personally, I'd allow an Administration roll to evalulate their fit for the corporate culture in your organisation and Leadership (without Charisma bonuses) to evaluate their capabilities as part of a team of individuals. And IQ-based skill roll against their skills within their fields or specialities would always be good for estimating their expertise.

But I don't exactly know which if these skills ought to be most important in selecting a good team of subordinates. And I don't know how much time a character needs to make an unmodified skill roll. That's crucial for estimating how quickly an organisation can be put together.

For example, Just Hand Tiglath, Lady of Thunderous Vengeance, High Priestess of the Three Thunders, Atoner of the Highest, has recently dedicated herself to making the lot of the common people more tolerable. To that end, she has accepted a position where she uses her local contacts, formiddable personality and awesome (if not fearsome) reputation to hire workers for the public work projects of the PCs.

She has been the leader of a secret religious society for two decades and led a full-scale rebellion against Gilgeam, the former God-King of Unther. While she was born elsehwere in Unther, she has spent the past two years as one of the most respected people in the patch-work of factions that serves as the government of Free Unther in Messemprar.

Now she has abandoned her goddess and taken up the service of a new (slightly less terrifying) god, but is quite irregular in that she views her service as consisting of atoning for the ways the Assuran, and all other gods, have abused the trust of their followers and caused the common people to suffer. As such, she will use the powers granted to her to punish those who oppress or victimise people in the name of religion.

She will also use her strong will, authoritative personality and long experience of command to try to stop the famine and plagues of the refugee camps by repairing and rebuilding the sewers of Messemprar and the qanaths and irritation systems outside of it, not to mention improving the hygiene in other ways.

She is actually not a terribly inspiring and charismatic leader, given that people are more likely to fear her than follow her, but she is nevertheless frightfully competent and sensible. In game terms, she has high IQ, some Talents related to being strong-willed and forceful and lots of skill points in her fields, but neither Charisma, Voice nor Appearance (in fact, she's Ugly).

She has Administration -20, Diplomacy -12, Intimidation -25, Leadership -20, Politics -14, Psychology (Applied) -20 and Public Speaking -12. She doesn't have Engineering (Civil) or any advanced mathematical or technological skills, but she has Engineering (Combat) -13, Savoir-Faire (Military) -15, Operations -15, Soldier -15, Strategy -14 and Tactics -18.

What I'm wondering is how long would it take her, assuming that she was provided with good cash flow, but little assistance beyond a few crowd-control bodyguards** from the Artisans' militia and the Purple Reign marines, to organise effective public work projects from the huge (tens of thousands) refugee camps?

She'd have to find local engineers, local overseers, local accountants, local suppliers, etc.

And assuming that she was asked to keep an eye out for people who were not already serving one faction or another but would obviously make better soldiers than labourers, how rapidly could she spot people who'd make good recruits for a military force?

How long would it take her to have a training cadre set up that could handle providing good intensive training, assuming*** she was allowed to use all three hundred of the Artisan's militia and some ten marines?

And, assuming that the PCs were allowed to pick some five hundred already serving soldiers from their allies as a cadre, how long would it take her, the 300 militia and those ten marines to make a selection that would be mostly free of destructive factional allegiances and also result in some of the best and most mentally flexible soldiers?

She'd have the freedom to contact the Kehlynn Darkwater, the herald spymaster, and make use of his rumour mill for the duration. For the military aspects, she'd be working closely with Kyros Nikandros, the military chief-of-staff. On the other hand, in both cases, they'd be busy enough so that they could only give her projects maybe an hour or two per day.

She'd have an easy time arranging joint training with a couple of thousand friendly mercenaries, though, as well as battlewizards of the Northern Wizards and their mystic knights and militiamen. As long as she could arrange this herself or with no more assistance from Kyros and Kehlynn than represented by an hour or two per day, because they each had dozens of other projects going on, many of them vital for the success of her public work projects in the future.

Assuming that the other PCs, their naval organisation and their other mercenaries, were mostly busy during this time, what ought her projects look like after two months?

How many people has she selected as trusted lieutenants? How many labourers does she employ after two months of recruiting, selection, organisation and preparations (her finances would support 10,000 people at maximum)?

How many people has she recruited as soldiers?

*Beyond the largely unconscious deception that goes on in all social situation, as people try to minimise their flaws and appear in the most favourable light possible.
**Or overseers or trainers, depending on how she wanted to use them.
***And further assuming that she spent no more than 20% of her time on such military work (instead of more useful work) and that only because she knew that without victory in the war, none of this would matter.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Icelander

True, but note that Psychology (Applied) is a Hard skill that is apparently fairly rare. And success just means that you'll have a basic idea of the psychological suitability of the candidate, with increasing margin of success giving you more details. Of course, any attempt by the recruit to delibarately deceive* you will mean a Quick Contest instead of an unmodified roll.

I do envision Sagatafl's Psychology: Practical to be rare, at least in terms of high skill levels. Probably most who are social engineers, beyond the hobby state, have some of it, but usually only a little. In GURPS terms (and you know I hate most GURPS Talents, including this one) it would make sense to have Smooth Operator give a bonus to Psychology (Applied) if it doesn't already.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Personally, I'd allow an Administration roll to evalulate their fit for the corporate culture in your organisation and Leadership (without Charisma bonuses) to evaluate their capabilities as part of a team of individuals. And IQ-based skill roll against their skills within their fields or specialities would always be good for estimating their expertise.

Well, yes, but I think the "risk" here is that you're only vetting for "squareness". For the person's ability to fit in and become a good drone. You risk overlooking instances of great potential, especially unusual potentail.

That's where I see Psychology: Practical (or (Applied)) as being of value: you'll actually get the gold nuggets. You'll get the rare individuals that TvTropes refers to as Bunny Ears Lawyers, whereas a "squareness"-based vetting/hiring doctrine, typical of 2dumb corporate culture", will turn away such individuals.

From that point of view, it makes perfect sense that Psychology (Applied) is a Hard skill. It'll be high-Difficulty to learn in Sagatafl too.

Originally Posted by Icelander

But I don't exactly know which if these skills ought to be most important in selecting a good team of subordinates. And I don't know how much time a character needs to make an unmodified skill roll. That's crucial for estimating how quickly an organisation can be put together.

Based on what I've outlined above, it seem to me that it should be faster to do a quick superficial check for squareness (or "soundness"), than to do a more thorough check that gives you a non-zero probability of identifying and subsequently hiring the eccentric genius, rather than dismissing him because he doesn't fit your preconcieved and highly specific notion of what it is you're after.

Base time 1 hour for Administration. Not sure about Leadership since you've usually already had someone under your command for a while, so it makes more sense to use that skill to evaluate an already-existing underling for possible promotion, than to evaluate a stranger applicant. But say 1 hour again and giving a (potentially generous) bonus for being familiar with the applicant, having seen how he functions under pressure, how he copes with the novel and unusual.

Compared to that, I'd say 4 hours to use Psychology: Practical or (Applied). It's a more thorough check, looking deeper, actively trying to be aware of and work around one's biases. Trying to look beyond the bunny ears, to see if there is unusual ability, or exceptional potentail, in there.

In all cases the standard rushing-or-using-extra time options can be used, and I have a vague idea that some of that 1 or those 4 hours may involve reading a dossier or CV or a written application, or reading recomendations from previous employers, rather than all the time being spent on a person-to-person interview.

Although of course in GURPS, someone with Empathy will get more use of his bonus if he spends most of the time on the interview. IIRC the bonus is +3, so full bonus if 3/4 of the time is spent on the interview, 2/3 bonus if at least 1/2 of the time is spent on the interview, and 1/3 bonus if at least 1/4 of the time is spent on the interview.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In GURPS, though, you use the Leadership skill to organise and manage a team of people. It's not just for battlefield command, it's what a successful manager uses with his own team (as opposed to Administration, which is used for the organisation on a larger scale).

Well, I was assuming that this was for people who one did not have time or ability to supervise directly: treasurers, garrison commanders, shop bosses, and so on. I would allow a roll against Leadership at a penalty for choosing people who will work under you, and lump in routine hiring (if the hiring process takes more than 5 minutes real time, it is not routine) under Administration.

I see Leadership as about getting subordinates who you know personally to do what you want, whereas Administration is for getting things done inside a bureaucracy, and Politics for persuading peers and the public. The core role of Psychology (Applied) is predicting people's behaviour, so that seems the most appropriate skill.

Do the rules for hiring people offer any advice? Regardless of the skill, I would give a penalty for the length of your contact with the candidate, and another based on the type of responsility. And it would be a Quick Contest against the candidate's subterfuge skil (Acting for interviews, Forgery for faking documents, something else for creating imaginary references).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Well, I was assuming that this was for people who one did not have time or ability to supervise directly: treasurers, garrison commanders, shop bosses, and so on. I would allow a roll against Leadership at a penalty for choosing people who will work under you, and lump in routine hiring (if the hiring process takes more than 5 minutes real time, it is not routine) under Administration.

I see Leadership as about getting subordinates who you know personally to do what you want, whereas Administration is for getting things done inside a bureaucracy, and Politics for persuading peers and the public. The core role of Psychology (Applied) is predicting people's behaviour, so that seems the most appropriate skill.

Ideally, all of them ought to be applicable and it ought to be useful to have skill 15 in all three, rather than simply skill 18 in one of them.

GURPS instructs us that true experts ought to have broad skill lists, but the picayune 'benefit' of Complementary Skill use don't really support that. I think I'll call for rolls against all of them, with success and failure on any meaning different things.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Do the rules for hiring people offer any advice? Regardless of the skill, I would give a penalty for the length of your contact with the candidate, and another based on the type of responsility. And it would be a Quick Contest against the candidate's subterfuge skil (Acting for interviews, Forgery for faking documents, something else for creating imaginary references).

The rules for hiring people in SE, like most rules written by Stoddard, are less than satisfactory. The text tells me nothing I didn't already know and if I try to use the mechanics, the results will rarely match the colour text or common sense.

Using those rules, a sufficiently skilled recruiter might turn up six veteran mounted archers per week he spends recruiting in an Icelandic village of fifty people, until, presumably, having signed up everyone in a couple of months. Increasing the population base of his recruiting area to 500,000 people will, however, merely result in a doubling of the pace of his recruiting.

Not exactly helpful.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I do envision Sagatafl's Psychology: Practical to be rare, at least in terms of high skill levels. Probably most who are social engineers, beyond the hobby state, have some of it, but usually only a little. In GURPS terms (and you know I hate most GURPS Talents, including this one) it would make sense to have Smooth Operator give a bonus to Psychology (Applied) if it doesn't already.

It would make a tremendous amount of sense, but unfortunately, it doesn't. Which probably explain why the ultimate social engineer and smooth operator in my campaign has it at skill 12, while he has Fast-Talk -20, Propaganda -23, Politics -20 and Merchant -27.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Well, yes, but I think the "risk" here is that you're only vetting for "squareness". For the person's ability to fit in and become a good drone. You risk overlooking instances of great potential, especially unusual potentail.

That's where I see Psychology: Practical (or (Applied)) as being of value: you'll actually get the gold nuggets. You'll get the rare individuals that TvTropes refers to as Bunny Ears Lawyers, whereas a "squareness"-based vetting/hiring doctrine, typical of 2dumb corporate culture", will turn away such individuals.

Why would highly skilled administrators, managers and team leaders be screening for dumb criteria which don't actually affect the job performance?

I'll grant that adopting a criteria which screens out the occasional eccentric genius, but otherwise performs adequately, might make sense if it takes much less time to perform. But if not constrained by that, I think someone with high Administration or Leadership ought specifically be adept at innovative utilisation of manpower and talent.

Granted, the best recruiters have all of Administration, Detect Lies, Leadership, Psychology (Applied) and Teaching. But if you had to choose just one, it would have to be IQ-based Leadership or Administration, depending on the scale, I should think.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Based on what I've outlined above, it seem to me that it should be faster to do a quick superficial check for squareness (or "soundness"), than to do a more thorough check that gives you a non-zero probability of identifying and subsequently hiring the eccentric genius, rather than dismissing him because he doesn't fit your preconcieved and highly specific notion of what it is you're after.

That's fair enough.

In general, for the PCs, assume that building teams, organisations and institutions quickly is more important than not missing the occasional nugget of quality.

On the other hand, some of their requirements call for very special skill sets, personalities, loyalties and experiences.

And, in any case, for the first weeks, recruiting people who can function as middle-managers and independent recruiters, would be the most crucial step.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

In all cases the standard rushing-or-using-extra time options can be used, and I have a vague idea that some of that 1 or those 4 hours may involve reading a dossier or CV or a written application, or reading recomendations from previous employers, rather than all the time being spent on a person-to-person interview.

Using those numbers, you could potentially evaluate and hire a lot of people in a month.

Probably the time should vary quite a bit by how simple or complex your skill and personality requirements are. Do you need to establish that someone would make a decent deck hand? Or whether he could be the chief architect and desginer over a public works project where he'd employ five thousand men, including a multinational team of inventors, engineers and other experts?