Skill System Mechanics

TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
November 29, 2008 - 1:13pm
In the interest of getting down to brass tacks, I'll star this thread on the skill system to be used in the game.  As I see it there are a few choices that I'd think would work, you all can chime in on others or make suggestions.

1)  Bill's system as proposed in SFMan 9, probably with embellisments.  This has the advantage/disadvantage of being similar to the original AD system, just expanded and cleaned up a little.  We could flesh it out more and expand it as needed.
2)  Another option would be to go more along the lines of the skill system provided by Zeb's guide, where all the skills are broken down into lots of little skills and the XP cost is lowered for advancement.
3)  We could take a route that gets us away from XP altogether.  I'm thinking of something along the lines of Chaosium's Basic Role playing system (as used at least in early editions of Call of Cuthulu and RuneQuest)  In this system, you would have a large list of skills available as well.  A starting character would begin with some inital set of skills and have some percentage for success with each of those skills.  As the skills are used, the character has a chance to increase his ablility with those skills (typically at the end of an adventure).  In addition, exisitng skills can be improved or new skills learned through training.  The method makes character generation a bit more involved but adds a bit more realism.

Of course the is also the issue of pre-requisite skills that we would have to tackle.  For example, I would expect that you can't do astrogation untill you have some basic backround in computers, astronomy and mathematics.  Of course we'll have to figure out if we want to worry about this or not.

Questions, comments and discussion beging now...
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
My blog - Expanding Frontier
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine
Comments:

TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
November 29, 2008 - 1:13pm
Personally, I love to see idea three devloped but it would take a fair bit of work.  I actually built out that system for a fantasy game (an extension of RuneQuest) that had over 250 different skills and over 400 starting vocations that a character could choose from.  If we want to go that route, I have the experience and could help out/lead that part of the project.
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
My blog - Expanding Frontier
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine

SmootRK's picture
SmootRK
November 29, 2008 - 1:28pm
I prefer a treatment using Bill's system as a base. It has the advantage of being relatively close to the original game which allows for use of the old material... not something we use in print, but obviously something that many would like - interoperability with the original material.

my 2 cents on this anyhow.  I am flexible regardless.
<insert witty comment here>

Will's picture
Will
November 29, 2008 - 1:40pm
Option 1, but call them professions, or skills, or character templates, or something other than PSAs, so as to keep the lawyers at bay.

"You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so."


—Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
November 29, 2008 - 1:45pm
I'm totally flexible too, but I personally prefer small finite lists rather than huge lists. If you look at the approach I took in the treatment from issue 9, you'll see I went the way of categorically defining skills rather than providing exhaustive lists. For one thing, it makes character generation quicker. For another thing, if you try to be exhaustive, you'll leave something out. Large lists of skills are a put-off for me.

But that's just me. I'm also a huge fan of the Hero System, which has a list of skills that I find pretty darned comprehensive (I have never found a situation that wasn't covered by that list of skills) and they only have 66 skills if you don't count martial arts. Maybe I'd be happy with any list that seemed comprehensive but at the same time numbered well under 100 skills - in fact I'd prefer 50 or less if possible.

So in issue 9's article, I chose to be comprehensive by making the skills more categoric rather than larger lists of cheaper finite skills.

So let's hear other opinions?
3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


Will's picture
Will
November 29, 2008 - 2:13pm
Sometimes going minimalist is all the exhaustive you need.

Maybe the PSA itself should be treated as the skill for terms of resolving skill checks.

"You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so."


—Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
November 29, 2008 - 3:21pm
I think the PSA itself is too broad... for example, just because you're good with one type of art doesn't necessarily mean you're good with others.  For example, someone who can paint can't necessarily sculpt.  I think there needs to be one more level of detail beyond the PSA itself.

But the bigger question is this:  Should we keep all these skills grouped into PSAs and use the Primary Skill Area/Secondary Skill Area... to denote people's individual callings?  Or should we just separate them out into all their individual skills and just make it a skill list without any skill-area groupings?  I see benefits to both.  One keeps the rules closer to what we all love, but one might be more in line with other modern role-playing games.  Opinions?
3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


Will's picture
Will
November 29, 2008 - 3:38pm
The former system, definitely.

It gives a little more structure to a character.

"You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so."


—Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation

SmootRK's picture
SmootRK
November 30, 2008 - 8:54am
I like the specialization in certain fields, not just certain skills, so I think some form of PSA mechanic should stay.  Like all areas of this kind of project, perhaps new terms could be used.  Any suggestions?
<insert witty comment here>

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
November 30, 2008 - 9:32am
SmootRK wrote:
I like the specialization in certain fields, not just certain skills, so I think some form of PSA mechanic should stay. Like all areas of this kind of project, perhaps new terms could be used. Any suggestions?
Well "PSA" was the term in Star Frontiers, "Primary Skill Area" - any consideration of Secondary or Tertiary was my doing in that article, so I think we can use those terms cuz they sound neat. But Skill Area is a bad idea to use, you're right. We should not use the abbreviation PSA or its likeness.

Primary and Secondary Talent?

My primary talent is technological, my secondary talents are as an Agent and Scientist. That sounds interesting...


3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


SmootRK's picture
SmootRK
November 30, 2008 - 9:35am
Very nice.  That works for me, better than the stuff coming in my mind.
<insert witty comment here>

SmootRK's picture
SmootRK
November 30, 2008 - 9:36am
er, I think I liked training, but talent sounds fine too.
<insert witty comment here>

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
November 30, 2008 - 11:02am
SmootRK wrote:
er, I think I liked training, but talent sounds fine too.
Primary or Secondary Training makes sense too.

What about the term "Skill Area" -- maybe we should refer to it as something different.  For example, the Tech PSA in issue 9 includes Technician, Computers, and Robotics...we shouldn't call "Tech" a Professional Skill Area with an abbreviation of PSA... When I was originally writing that article I referred to those professional skill areas as Vocations, but then dumped that before I submitted it in order to keep with SF nomenclature.

If we used "Vocation" then we would say that we have a Primary Trainig in the Tech Vocation, and Secondary Training in the Artist and Scholar Vocations.  All other Vocations are Tertiary.  Does that sound good?
3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


SmootRK's picture
SmootRK
November 30, 2008 - 11:05am
Vocation is good term.  I must admit to having a bit of a mental block in coming up with alternate terms to use in this area. 
<insert witty comment here>

Will's picture
Will
November 30, 2008 - 1:18pm
How about Profession or Role?

"You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so."


—Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
November 30, 2008 - 1:44pm
Will wrote:
How about Profession or Role?
Profession is a good term.  Maybe better than Vocation - not sure.  I'm not a fan of Role though, just my opinions of course
3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
November 30, 2008 - 2:13pm
Or, since it's a category of related skills, it doesn't represent a specific "profession" but instead an area of professional aptitude... I re-read my article and think it will work pretty well, except in the manner of skill resolution.

More than one of you have suggested less importance on ability scores.  I personally have always liked the combat 1/2 Ability + 10 per Level formula.  But if you would like to see more of an emphasis on skill and a lower influence by ability, maybe a new formula is necessary? 

In that article as presented, an average character who has a 45% ability score ends up with a 33% chance of success if he has a first level skill (half of 45 is 23, plus 10 per Level, or 33).  At first level of ability, I reasoned, natural talent is often more important than skill.  Once a character reaches the second level of ability, however, his chance becomes 43%, meaning his skill is nearly as important as his natural talent (ability score).  At third level and above (which I consider a "professional" level of skill), it is clearly his training which is governing his success rate.  Once he reaches level 6, 60% of his 83% success rate is derived from training and practice.  I thought that was a pretty decent estimation of things.

However, if it is preferable to derive success rate purely from skill level, let's hear alternatives - that article was just my opinion and of course this new game is to be built through collaboration.

as an aside, I can't wait until we have a few of these things hammered out so we can start actually putting the wording onto paper!
3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


Will's picture
Will
November 30, 2008 - 6:55pm

Using the standard ½ ability+10%/skill level chance would allow for untrained skill use....

"You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so."


—Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
November 30, 2008 - 11:20pm
Will wrote:

Using the standard ½ ability+10%/skill level chance would allow for untrained skill use....



I went bowling today and I'm in agreement.

bioreplica's picture
bioreplica
December 1, 2008 - 5:08am
P.S.A. should be P.F.A as in Primary Field Area. Each field divided in a limited number of broad skills. One studies in the «Field of medicine» and aquires skills relative to the «sector/branch» he chooses the specializes into. Generalist, surgeons, cancerologist, etc.
«Language is a virus from outer space» William S. Burroughs

Colt45's picture
Colt45
December 1, 2008 - 5:26am
I never liked that you got xp from doing random stuff like saving small animals from gangsters (Drumune Run) How would it make you a better shot if you save 35 squirrels instead of 5? I think that each skill should have a reqired list of things you need to do e.g.to reach second lvl beam weapons you need 10 hits/kills wiht a beam weapon.  Another thing, i think that pistols rifles and heavy weapons should have different skills . I am a better shot with a rifle than a pistol.

(insert sarcastic comeback here)


Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
December 1, 2008 - 6:24am
Colt45 wrote:
I never liked that you got xp from doing random stuff like saving small animals from gangsters (Drumune Run) How would it make you a better shot if you save 35 squirrels instead of 5? I think that each skill should have a reqired list of things you need to do e.g.to reach second lvl beam weapons you need 10 hits/kills wiht a beam weapon.  Another thing, i think that pistols rifles and heavy weapons should have different skills . I am a better shot with a rifle than a pistol.


....but didn't you have to fight you way to save them? I can't remember.
I think it's annoying I can't specialize in heavy/mounted weapons.
What about a primary weapons proficiency area, like BEAM which is used for any Beam weapon and you can pick/buy specialization? BEAM and Rifle.

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
December 1, 2008 - 6:30am
bioreplica wrote:
P.S.A. should be P.F.A as in Primary Field Area. Each field divided in a limited number of broad skills. One studies in the «Field of medicine» and aquires skills relative to the «sector/branch» he chooses the specializes into. Generalist, surgeons, cancerologist, etc.


At first glance this is too narrow. I like the SF medical skill that let's me work on just about anything.

Shing's picture
Shing
December 1, 2008 - 7:41am
I for one enjoy more diverse skill lists as I found the core SF ones to be too broad and generic.  For example an Archaeologist character could, in game terms, be identical in skills to a Biologist or a Librarian with the only real differentiation being in how the player used it.  With the medical skill as an example, not everyone in a medical profession knows how to do everything that is why there are specialists, EMTs, nurses, GPs, basic first aid training, first aid instructors, Tactical Combat Casualty Care training, some are for field use, some for battlefield some for hospital but a military field medic (for example) cannot perform heart surgery and never will be able to without becoming a doctor.  I think the medical skill should definately have variation to it to make it neccessary to require help outside of a group of four characters, to keep things "dangerous".

I agree that it is a little odd to employ skills, gain points and be able to increase skills that were never put into use.  Not that I want to complicate things, but what if you had combat "XP" and a generic "XP"?  When you have combat you gain combat "XP" that can only be applied to combat skills.  This is still generic in that you can get "XP" from shooting a pistol and apply it to your grenade skill, but at least you cannot walk out of a blood bath and suddenly know how to fix a hyperdrive.  Or there is the suggestion above, that for repeated success with a skill, that skill specifically goes up one point or level.  This can be coupled with a training requirement so that you cannot simply shoot at beer bottles all day for a week and be 100% in your ability.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."

SmootRK's picture
SmootRK
December 1, 2008 - 8:19am
I think 2 sets of xp or requirements for advancing non-combat skills is an over-complication.  Ideally, game scenarios are designed for groups of dissimilar pcs to overcome... and in the overall, each character gets to have his day.  But of course, the action requirement of games makes the combat come out on top.

Two sets might seem logical from an individual character point of view, but I doubt it would help game play mechanics much.  I think the xp system, pretty much as-is, is fine... with just some adjustments to how xp can spent, such as graduated ability score advancement costs or other additional ways to spend xp like the career paths (UPF, Star Law, etc) or Cohort mechanics.  Perhaps even spending xp for 're-rolls', like a hero-point.
<insert witty comment here>

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
December 1, 2008 - 11:09am
Shing wrote:
I for one enjoy more diverse skill lists as I found the core SF ones to be too broad and generic. For example an Archaeologist character could, in game terms, be identical in skills to a Biologist or a Librarian with the only real differentiation being in how the player used it. With the medical skill as an example, not everyone in a medical profession knows how to do everything that is why there are specialists, EMTs, nurses, GPs, basic first aid training, first aid instructors, Tactical Combat Casualty Care training, some are for field use, some for battlefield some for hospital but a military field medic (for example) cannot perform heart surgery and never will be able to without becoming a doctor. I think the medical skill should definately have variation to it to make it neccessary to require help outside of a group of four characters, to keep things "dangerous".

I agree that it is a little odd to employ skills, gain points and be able to increase skills that were never put into use. Not that I want to complicate things, but what if you had combat "XP" and a generic "XP"? When you have combat you gain combat "XP" that can only be applied to combat skills. This is still generic in that you can get "XP" from shooting a pistol and apply it to your grenade skill, but at least you cannot walk out of a blood bath and suddenly know how to fix a hyperdrive. Or there is the suggestion above, that for repeated success with a skill, that skill specifically goes up one point or level. This can be coupled with a training requirement so that you cannot simply shoot at beer bottles all day for a week and be 100% in your ability.
Separate XP is a little cumbersome, but someone else had an idea that might help separate us from the game that is inspiring ours... and it might fit in with what you're all saying: NO XP!

What if each skill and ability score had a little box next to it. During the game, if you attempt a skill or ability roll (whether you succeed or not) you put a checkmark in the box next to it. When the sitting is over, you go through each checked ability/skill and make some kind of roll to see if it improved. This roll can be based ona table or something - it can have gradual stages to represent how incrementally more difficult it is to increase a skill to very high levels, etc. If you use a skill unskilled, you write it in and put a check in the box... after the sitting you just might improve it to first level. That way, continued USE of your skills and abilities are what boosts them, not discretionary XP that fail to simulate reality. No XP to keep track of. Just be adventurous and daring, and if it doesn't kill ya then it just might make you better :-)

Sounds pretty realistic... but we'd also have to have an option for discretionary improvement too.  People study and improve themselves all the time without being tested on adventures.  Maybe allow the player to place one discretionary checkmark in any one box after the sitting, giving him a chance to improve one thing he didn't use.
3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
December 1, 2008 - 11:44am
CleanCutRogue wrote:
Shing wrote:
I for one enjoy more diverse skill lists as I found the core SF ones to be too broad and generic. For example an Archaeologist character could, in game terms, be identical in skills to a Biologist or a Librarian with the only real differentiation being in how the player used it. With the medical skill as an example, not everyone in a medical profession knows how to do everything that is why there are specialists, EMTs, nurses, GPs, basic first aid training, first aid instructors, Tactical Combat Casualty Care training, some are for field use, some for battlefield some for hospital but a military field medic (for example) cannot perform heart surgery and never will be able to without becoming a doctor. I think the medical skill should definately have variation to it to make it neccessary to require help outside of a group of four characters, to keep things "dangerous".

I agree that it is a little odd to employ skills, gain points and be able to increase skills that were never put into use. Not that I want to complicate things, but what if you had combat "XP" and a generic "XP"? When you have combat you gain combat "XP" that can only be applied to combat skills. This is still generic in that you can get "XP" from shooting a pistol and apply it to your grenade skill, but at least you cannot walk out of a blood bath and suddenly know how to fix a hyperdrive. Or there is the suggestion above, that for repeated success with a skill, that skill specifically goes up one point or level. This can be coupled with a training requirement so that you cannot simply shoot at beer bottles all day for a week and be 100% in your ability.
Separate XP is a little cumbersome, but someone else had an idea that might help separate us from the game that is inspiring ours... and it might fit in with what you're all saying: NO XP!

What if each skill and ability score had a little box next to it. During the game, if you attempt a skill or ability roll (whether you succeed or not) you put a checkmark in the box next to it. When the sitting is over, you go through each checked ability/skill and make some kind of roll to see if it improved. This roll can be based ona table or something - it can have gradual stages to represent how incrementally more difficult it is to increase a skill to very high levels, etc. If you use a skill unskilled, you write it in and put a check in the box... after the sitting you just might improve it to first level. That way, continued USE of your skills and abilities are what boosts them, not discretionary XP that fail to simulate reality. No XP to keep track of. Just be adventurous and daring, and if it doesn't kill ya then it just might make you better :-)

Sounds pretty realistic... but we'd also have to have an option for discretionary improvement too.  People study and improve themselves all the time without being tested on adventures.  Maybe allow the player to place one discretionary checkmark in any one box after the sitting, giving him a chance to improve one thing he didn't use.

I think that someone else was me.  I really like this system.  In the system I've played that uses it, to improve your skill you have to FAIL a skill roll.  What happens is that at the end of the adventure, you roll your skill for each skill that has the check mark.  If you fail the roll, then you get to increase the skill by 1d6 or 2 percent.  (We could make it 1d5).  If you succeed the skill roll you don't improve.  Thus the more skilled you are the harder it gets to get better.  The system also allows for research and training to increase the skill as well.  After X hours of training you get to take the d6 or 2 points.  The system has skill modifiers based on the characters ablility scores that figure in to this as well and it is possible to get skills over 100% to help offset negative effect modifiers.  If we are interested in pursuing this I could do a more detailed write up of the mechanic.
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
My blog - Expanding Frontier
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine

SmootRK's picture
SmootRK
December 1, 2008 - 11:49am
It sounds like a lot more record-keeping to me.  Not sure it would go over universally.  But, I do like the idea of it... perhaps blocked as Optional... Alternate Advancement Mechanic (No XP).

That way we keep in line with original material, but allow for the alternate style as well.
<insert witty comment here>

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
December 1, 2008 - 12:47pm
SmootRK wrote:
It sounds like a lot more record-keeping to me. Not sure it would go over universally. But, I do like the idea of it... perhaps blocked as Optional... Alternate Advancement Mechanic (No XP).

That way we keep in line with original material, but allow for the alternate style as well.
Any approach to make the experience system more realistic is going to require some kind of change in the way we do things.  Is it more record-keeping?  It's just a checkmark.  Not one per use or anything, just one checkmark if you used an ability/skill.  At the end of the session, you get to add one discretionary checkmark then go down the list of all of your checkmarks and roll for improvement.  Might not improve a damned thing, might improve everything you tested.

It's worth playtesting.  Of course all of the ideas we're tossing about can be made into optional systems, just like ya said SmootRK... but we have to decide on some form of core system.  If we don't want unrealism, this is a good way to go.  If we don't mind the unrealism of the existing system, then let's keep using it.  I'm just flowing ideas right now, and really don't have a plan or vision yet.  I'm waiting to see what others think before I start putting down some text into drafts.
3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


elpotof's picture
elpotof
December 1, 2008 - 2:20pm
This sounds a really interesting concept - more emphasis on the player to look after his character. the only trouble is, you're going to get a few individuals 'attempting' all their skills through a session
(although a good ref will sort that out).
My only concern is that if you will not be able to produce 'specialists' as there is only a checkbox for each referee determined session. What is the incentive for weapon specialists, or other kinds of specialist?
My way around this would be to give a bonus checkbox to each profession i.e. soldiers would have the potential of earning two checkboxes for military type skills, and only one checkbox for all others.

SmootRK's picture
SmootRK
December 1, 2008 - 2:26pm
Perhaps when it comes to skills, the check box is for the PSA itself, and not for individual skills.  Do some Tech stuff, and you get the opportunity to advance a Tech skill.  Spy stuff begets more Agent skills.

There also needs to be a mechanism for learning altogether new skills, or a 'player's choice' point.  At the very least some sort of training program available.

It is an interesting concept and sounds worthy of playtest.  Again, I am not sure we need to change this aspect of the game from what is already there, but I would be willing to consider it.
<insert witty comment here>