 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 |
 December 2, 2008 - 3:51pm | hmm weapon specialization... perhaps we could simply allow an additional +5% per skill level with a single specialized weapon type (ie. +15% per skill level overall). I guess we could use +15 per level... but what's wrong with just a +1/-1 level mechanic? I think it's easier to use in-game especially if you're 10 years old (quick, son: what's 4x15?), though if you have a reason the +15/level is easier or more realistic I'm totally open and often easily convinced haha... Carry this over to some of the skills, Medical Fields choose a specific race for the bonus. Environmental choose a particular terrain/ecosystem type (mountains, volcanic, oceanic, methane forest, ???). I think if we look at each skill we can figure out a way to make an easy specialization mechanic for it. I would be inclined to state that a character can only choose one specialization, but perhaps a mechanism for changing specialization can be developed (at an XP cost). That suggestion up-thread isn't just for weapons - I stated in the first example that it applies to medical (my example was "cybernetics") or robotics (my example was "maintenance robots") or any other skill the player wants to specialize in. You're right, we could easily develop a list of suggestions for specialization, but should not try to be comprehensive in that list. :-) I honestly don't see why we would limit players to only one total specialization - though I agree that it may only be one area of specialization per skill. For example, someone in real life could be a computer expert who focuses on database development, but also a medic who specializes in ear/nose/throat. There's no reason he has to be a general practicioner just because he focuses on database development, ya know? Specialization is meant to be a narrowing of skill focus, not necessarily an overarching career model. At least that's how I see it. What do you think? 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. |
 December 2, 2008 - 4:14pm | Simple system. You pick a specialization when you choose the skill, your skill level's the level in that speciality alone. All uses of skill outside the specialization are at -10%. Simple. "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 |
December 2, 2008 - 5:39pm | Simple system. Then why specialize? You get no benefit. If you chose not to specialize, you'd get the same chance to use your area of focus but no penalties to using other stuff...You pick a specialization when you choose the skill, your skill level's the level in that speciality alone. All uses of skill outside the specialization are at -10%. Simple. 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. |
December 2, 2008 - 5:57pm | You get a penalty for using other stuff...-10% Same as the penalty for usingheavy weapons with your regular weapons skill. "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 |
December 2, 2008 - 6:03pm | You get a penalty for using other stuff...-10% I'm not sure we're talking about the same things here...Same as the penalty for usingheavy weapons with your regular weapons skill. What I'm talking about is you make a character and select "Medic" as a skill, you get it at level 1 and choose not to specialize. I make a character and select "Medic" as a skill and decide to be a specialist in a smaller focus of Medic, and select... oh I dunno... Yazirian physiologies as my specialization. So under your system suggestion - we both have the same percent chance to operate on a yazirian. I, however, would be penalized for operating on a human while you are not... so why would I specialize? I'm better off not doing so. 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. |
 December 2, 2008 - 9:21pm | Maybe by specializing it is not that you get a bonus to use, but that you can get that one cheaper and be able to go one level higher (i.e. 7 instead of 6), with some kind of restrictions. Think along the lines of school. In highschool most of us cover the same material as all of our classmates to one degree or another. Not true specialization, just better at it. In say university you take a 3rd year physics major and ask him a 3rd year biology question and you would think you shot his dog. It is easier for a biology major to find the information he needs to move to the next year than it is for a physics major to try and achieve 4th year biology. Even one step further, levels are representative not just of an accumulation of experience but also of time spent with that skill. It takes one year to go from 3rd year biology to 4th year, not just done by reading the material (may only take a couple of months), but by mastering it through use and repetition (many more months). This mastery could be rewarded by making it easier to achieve the next level due to your dedication. We have all seen the people in classes that while they are plodding through and will get their BSc, will never make it the Masters or PhD level. A specialized person will make it farther in that skill at the cost of not being able to progress to that level in an unrelated skill such as computer programming. "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
|
 December 2, 2008 - 9:29pm | That seems like an interesting take on it... similar to a human racial quality that I proposed over in one of the discussions on race. Cheaper & higher potential. Another thought... why 6 levels? why not 8 or 10 with 5% increments? or something else. Is this another area where we could do things better or innovate a change? <insert witty comment here> |
December 2, 2008 - 10:44pm | Six seems to work - and 10xLevel is easy math even for my youngest kid (he's 8 and plays). But I do see what you mean... it would be another way to differentiate our game. Another idea... if the only reason to have a skill level is to represent a +10 bonus, we could just list the skill level as 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60. That would sufficiently differentiate us without losing the love of the simple game mechanics that inspired this new game. There really is nothing more you can do with a skill level than convert it to a +10 anyway... so cut to the chase. Maybe an optional rule to make later in the Referee book would allow for more gradual purchases - twelve levels of +5 each at a lower experience cost? But I'm going to try to keep things similar to the mechanics inspiring us with only making differences obvious to the IP. I'm confident we are safe using a 1-6 level scale. So what do you think? Express levels in the form of 10,20,30,40,50 and 60? 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. |
December 2, 2008 - 11:00pm | I think it is a good idea. Simple, effectively the same while looking different, & easy enough given the refined skill mechanic that works in a universal manner (rather than AD with varying success chances based on individual subskill). The +5% method could also be used by Refs who want to slow the pace of advancement with their campaigns (as well as strictly controlling xp allotments). Something to keep in mind when we write Referee sections on campaign/game management. Maybe just throw an alternate advancement table. For those who want fast advancement, XP awards can be increased, but since we are talking about low xp dispersements for most games (the standard method you wrote about), another consideration should be available. <insert witty comment here> |
December 2, 2008 - 11:12pm | I think it is a good idea. Simple, effectively the same while looking different, & easy enough given the refined skill mechanic that works in a universal manner (rather than AD with varying success chances based on individual subskill). <snip> Let's chew on that for a while. I started editing the document but realized that it seemed less easily understood with all the "level 20" and "level 10" references. People understand a simple incremental number better. 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. |
December 3, 2008 - 4:10pm | Six seems to work - and 10xLevel is easy math even for my youngest kid (he's 8 and plays). But I do see what you mean... it would be another way to differentiate our game. Another idea... if the only reason to have a skill level is to represent a +10 bonus, we could just list the skill level as 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60. That would sufficiently differentiate us without losing the love of the simple game mechanics that inspired this new game. There really is nothing more you can do with a skill level than convert it to a +10 anyway... so cut to the chase. Maybe an optional rule to make later in the Referee book would allow for more gradual purchases - twelve levels of +5 each at a lower experience cost? But I'm going to try to keep things similar to the mechanics inspiring us with only making differences obvious to the IP. I'm confident we are safe using a 1-6 level scale. So what do you think? Express levels in the form of 10,20,30,40,50 and 60? Or maybe even in between. Sounds like a winner to me. "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 |
December 3, 2008 - 4:12pm | I think it is a good idea. Simple, effectively the same while looking different, & easy enough given the refined skill mechanic that works in a universal manner (rather than AD with varying success chances based on individual subskill). <snip> Let's chew on that for a while. I started editing the document but realized that it seemed less easily understood with all the "level 20" and "level 10" references. People understand a simple incremental number better. Which might explain the original authors' reasoning.... "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 |
December 3, 2008 - 5:04pm | Which might explain the original authors' reasoning.... I tried it several ways and just don't think it reads well to a newbie.... I had my son (age 10) read it and try to understand it and he got confused, though once I explained it at length he could follow it. I changed it back to 1-6 and even my youngest son (8 years old) understood it fine. I think that settles it. 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. |
December 3, 2008 - 5:24pm | Absolutely. 1-6 it is. "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 |
 December 5, 2008 - 12:29pm | The third option reminds me of the EVE Online method of skill advancement, the the exception of skill use increasing the skill, which would make more sense, then just spending countless hours, days or weeks increasing a skill. i've tackled a similar puzzle making Sentience with my friends, and we decided that skill points, and xp were not conducive to the point of ease of use and practical skill increasements, and we opted for a system that determined the players learning speed, via intelligence, or general aptitude stat as the case may be, and over time, depending on skill use, the skill would increase by a precentage of their aptitude or intelligence stat. But it also allowed for focused study of a skill to increase a skill 5 times faster than normal. It's a similar training style to the military... where they beat everything into you, so you learn it faster... heh |
December 6, 2008 - 8:22am | Perhaps this thread can be closed because we have the thread directly associated with the Skill Document now... merge perhaps? <insert witty comment here> |
