#5: Who Are You?

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/talesfromtherockethouse/talesfromtherockethouse5.phtml

Summary:

Realism and character traits.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/talesfromtherockethouse/talesfromtherockethouse5.phtml) for more information.

[smascrns]

How to say it, I'm not convinced at all. Let's see why:

The list of traits is not very consistent since it includes things that seem not to be equivalent. For instance, you have a trait for hand-to-hand combat (why call it Prowess, a non-intuitive name, instead of something like 'fighting' or 'combat', btw?). This, like most traits, represents one particular type of action. But you also have a different trait, Strengh, that covers "dealing damage". Now, correct me if I'm wrong but 'dealing damage' seems to be about the consequences of the action performed by the character, an action such as a Prowess action. Thus you are using two traits in an affazard way.

And Wrestling is just another type of hand-to-hand fighting, why place it under Strengh? As you say, you don't care about the explanation to why things happen, thus it is irrelevant if the damage done with wrestling comes from strengh or... Athleticism (those damn' names you have chosen for your traits...).

Coolness under fire in direct relationship to Awareness? What about the cowards? Wouldn't they be the most aware of all that's happening 'under fire' so that they can get out of it as fast as they can? Besides, one can keep its complete coolness under fire since one has an high Awareness, and next become a complete chicken if captured and tortured due to a low Willpower!

But my greatest problem with your system comes from this: "But “realism runner-up” is immensely simple: just rate each area on its own, and not worry about cross referencing, adding dice, etc."
Now, I can acept this without a problem. The issue is, if that's so, why have traits at all? it would be a lot simpler to remove a set list of traits covering several things that don't glue together and that are even contradictory, and just live completely up to the SUBJECTIVE character creation concept. Each player creates the traits he wants with the game providing several examples that cover the more common requirements of the setting. Not that this is something new, it has been done (and well done) by several games over the years. HeroQuest comes to mind.

[Thanuir]

But my greatest problem with your system comes from this: "But “realism runner-up” is immensely simple: just rate each area on its own, and not worry about cross referencing, adding dice, etc."
Now, I can acept this without a problem. The issue is, if that's so, why have traits at all? it would be a lot simpler to remove a set list of traits covering several things that don't glue together and that are even contradictory, and just live completely up to the SUBJECTIVE character creation concept. Each player creates the traits he wants with the game providing several examples that cover the more common requirements of the setting. Not that this is something new, it has been done (and well done) by several games over the years. HeroQuest comes to mind.I'm kinda wondering this, too. I do know that fixed traits and such can be fun when adding specific ways of affecting them by advantages/perks/feats/talents. Do you have something like that in your game?

[Tarafore]

But my greatest problem with your system comes from this: "But “realism runner-up” is immensely simple: just rate each area on its own, and not worry about cross referencing, adding dice, etc."
Now, I can acept this without a problem. The issue is, if that's so, why have traits at all? it would be a lot simpler to remove a set list of traits covering several things that don't glue together and that are even contradictory, and just live completely up to the SUBJECTIVE character creation concept. Each player creates the traits he wants with the game providing several examples that cover the more common requirements of the setting. Not that this is something new, it has been done (and well done) by several games over the years. HeroQuest comes to mind.

I've seen it done (and written games where it's done) before, too. And it's simpler in theory, but much more complicated in practice. WHAT do the traits include? Does "police training" include Drive? Shoot? Computers? Undercover work? Riding Horses? Working with Dogs? First Aid?

What does "day care worker" include? By law, they're required to take a first aid class each year -but does that put them at the same level as "Paramedic?"

Having a framework to default to (a framework that can be changed to fit a player's idea of her character) is in practice much simpler and easier than not having one. But honestly, I think you know that.

[Tarafore]

Before I start the point-for-point arguing, let me say this:

I've had seven years to work on the system. I've actually thought about where all the specializations go, and furthermore, we've playtested the heck out of it. They work. In practice, not just theory.

That said, I acknowledge that every single Trait is a compromise. If there is a perfect way of putting things together, I've not found it yet. And there are many ways that you could distribute the specializations, and many different ways to divide the Traits themselves.

As far as the names go, "Prowess" is admittedly a bit archaic, but I like it. "Strength" is obvious, as are "Willpower" and "Wealth." "Rogue" is less mundane than "Deceit" (which is basically the only other option that sums that Trait up). "Athleticism" is what it is - it's not "Dexterity" or "Agility" - it's overall Athletic ability. "Presence" could have been named "Charisma," but I prefer the sound of "Presence," and I don't think it's at all confusing. "Awareness" was once named "Acuity," but I had so much trouble with people thinking I was just trying to rename "Intelligence Quotient" that I changed the name to better reflect what it actually meant.

I hate the way games that can't see past original D&D's nose slavishly stick to Dexterity (which in the game means everything from manual dexterity to physical agility to overall athleticism to combat ability), Strength, a renamed Constitution, Intelligence (which typically behaves nothing like IQ actually does) and so on.

I've intentionally avoided as many of those names as I could (though honestly, Strength is just too straightforward not to use, and typically it was actually used intuitively). Moreover, I've tried to avoid the baggage and quirks those old-school traits brought with them.


How to say it, I'm not convinced at all. Let's see why:

The list of traits is not very consistent since it includes things that seem not to be equivalent. For instance, you have a trait for hand-to-hand combat (why call it Prowess, a non-intuitive name, instead of something like 'fighting' or 'combat', btw?). This, like most traits, represents one particular type of action. But you also have a different trait, Strengh, that covers "dealing damage". Now, correct me if I'm wrong but 'dealing damage' seems to be about the consequences of the action performed by the character, an action such as a Prowess action. Thus you are using two traits in an affazard way.

What is affazard?

Prowess is used to hit and defend, as the acting and resisting trait in hand to hand combat.

Most melee weapons draw their effectiveness (or a portion of it) from the Strength of the wielder. Thus, Strength(Dealing Damage) is the base for the Stun and Wound ratings for those types of weapons (fists, most swords, etc). Some melee weapons (rapiers, futuristic energy or monofilament blades, etc) are much less dependent on Strength, and so have fixed Stun and Wound ratings the way that guns do.

If my post was unclear about that, I apologize (though I think my previous column made it abundantly clear just what Prowess and Strength do in combat).


And Wrestling is just another type of hand-to-hand fighting, why place it under Strengh? As you say, you don't care about the explanation to why things happen, thus it is irrelevant if the damage done with wrestling comes from strengh or... Athleticism (those damn' names you have chosen for your traits...).

This is mainly to simulate the reality that even if a huge muscular guy isn't that fast or well-trained in stand-up fighting, you don't want to let him get his huge hands around you unless you're highly trained in groundfighting - because he will crush you the way Dan Severn crushed his first two (highly trained strikers) opponents in the Ultimate Fighter Four tournament.


Coolness under fire in direct relationship to Awareness? What about the cowards? Wouldn't they be the most aware of all that's happening 'under fire' so that they can get out of it as fast as they can?

Maybe in a cartoon. In real life, untrained people tend to freeze up in high-stress situations. Those who can keep cool and aware in those situations are much more likely to be able to act quickly, notice important details, and avoid getting hit.


Besides, one can keep its complete coolness under fire since one has an high Awareness, and next become a complete chicken if captured and tortured due to a low Willpower!

I don't know - maybe because the sudden shock of an emergency breaking out is very different from a drawn out "interrogation" meant to grind down a person's will? The two have very little to do with one another.

--

As I said before, these Trait lists have worked for us for the better part of seven years. They aren't the only way to do things, and I'm not 100% satisfied with them, but they are functional and pretty easy to learn.

[smascrns]

WHAT do the traits include? Does "police training" include (skip) What does "day care worker" include?
I would never look at these things as 'traits'. For me they are skill packages ('classes' in D&D terms), not specific traits.
Having a framework to default to (a framework that can be changed to fit a player's idea of her character) is in practice much simpler and easier than not having one. But honestly, I think you know that.
But you can have a framework with freeform stats, that's what happens in HeroQuest, for instance. After all, any game needs to define its basic stats or skills or whatever it calls abilities. Suppose that you have a game with something like "day care worker". It should specify what's the content of "day care worker". It may even specify that there are different types of day care workers in different places with slightly different specifications. Once more, that's just a part of making it 'subjective', to use your terms.

[smascrns]

As far as the names go, "Prowess" is admittedly a bit archaic, but I like it.
It's not only archaic, it's misleading. I would never figure that "Prowess" doesn't include, for instance, athletic 'prowess'.
I also like a lot more 'deceit' than 'rogue' that has other connotations. A person can be a rogue without being deceitful, for instance.
'Athleticism' is mostly about agility, dexteriry is greatly secondary to it, and there are plenty of usages of dexterity or agility that are not 'athletical', like dancing, painting, etc. To express both agility and dexterity you have two words that work very well, 'coordination' and 'addroitness'.

I hate the way games that can't see past original D&D's nose slavishly stick to Dexterity
So do I. That's I prefer to use 'addroitness'. And I prefer 'intelect' to intelligence'. And I drop 'strengh' because I think it is best represented as a combination of coordination and size. (It's all in my past columns for RPGnet.)
Prowess is used to hit and defend, as the acting and resisting trait in hand to hand combat.
For all purposes wrestling is hand-to-hand combat. It requires both strengh and 'athleticism' to use your terminology. Ditto for boxing or any other combat sport. Why placing wrestling under Strengh instead of Prowess? And why not to follow a similar reasoning and place something like fencing under Athleticism, since here agility and dexterity drive the skill? I don't see the rational for you distribution of skills.
Most melee weapons draw their effectiveness (or a portion of it) from the Strength of the wielder. Thus, Strength(Dealing Damage) is the base for the Stun and Wound ratings for those types of weapons (fists, most swords, etc). Some melee weapons (rapiers, futuristic energy or monofilament blades, etc) are much less dependent on Strength, and so have fixed Stun and Wound ratings the way that guns do.
What I see here is this: You drew a list of traits. Next you tried to map different activities into those traits. And ended with a match that lacks any compreensible rational behind it. The greatest offender is the introduction of a Prowess stat to the side of Strengh and Athleticism. Based on the passage above what would make sense would be to include power related combat abilities under Strengh and precision related combat abilities under Athleticism. The way they do damage is a subsequent issue, of course, and it is not related to the choice of basic traits.
This is mainly to simulate the reality that even if a huge muscular guy isn't that fast or well-trained in stand-up fighting, you don't want to let him get his huge hands around you unless you're highly trained in groundfighting - because he will crush you the way Dan Severn crushed his first two (highly trained strikers) opponents in the Ultimate Fighter Four tournament.
There are plenty of ways to deal with this that avoid the problems with overlaping traits that your system is prone to.
In real life, untrained people tend to freeze up in high-stress situations. Those who can keep cool and aware in those situations are much more likely to be able to act quickly, notice important details, and avoid getting hit.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? I mean, you try to cover everything under a list of traits that are neither skills nor characteristics, sometimes look like skills and sometimes like characteristics, and the readed is left wondering what you have in mind. Coolness is one thing, awareness another. And combat experience a third one. You mix too many things. Why should a person with high Awareness be combat-trained? Or is your game only geared towards fighters?
I don't know - maybe because the sudden shock of an emergency breaking out is very different from a drawn out "interrogation" meant to grind down a person's will? The two have very little to do with one another.
Are you sure? Or are you just saying this because it is the direct consequence of your system and you prefer to bend reality to accomodate it to the system than sacrifice the system to accomodate reality? Because that's not what I think the normal person would consider to hold. Yes, fighting and torture are very different things but both affect the person at the same basic level: his phsycial and mental integrity. A person that is able to stay cool facing a type of thread will be more likely to stay cool when facing the other type of thread, at least that's what logic tends to support.
And, since your traits mix talent with training, it would also make sense to think that the fighter that is trained to stay cool under fire would also be trained to stay cool under torture. That's what most modern military try to prepare their men to, after all.
As I said before, these Trait lists have worked for us for the better part of seven years. They aren't the only way to do things, and I'm not 100% satisfied with them, but they are functional and pretty easy to learn.
I am sure they have worked with you, after all, you created them, developed them and got stuck into them. The question is, do they work with other people? And do they work better than any other game in the market? I can only say that so far they don't work with me.

[JRM]

Where's your technical and academic abilities? There seems to be no trait(s) accommodating such hand & mind traits as lock-picking, car mechanics, languages, occult lore et cetera.

It would strike me as a bit of a stretch to shoe-horn them into Athleticism, Will or Awareness.

[Tarafore]

I would never look at these things as 'traits'. For me they are skill packages ('classes' in D&D terms), not specific traits.

But you can have a framework with freeform stats, that's what happens in HeroQuest, for instance. After all, any game needs to define its basic stats or skills or whatever it calls abilities. Suppose that you have a game with something like "day care worker". It should specify what's the content of "day care worker". It may even specify that there are different types of day care workers in different places with slightly different specifications. Once more, that's just a part of making it 'subjective', to use your terms.

Ok. I can certainly agree with that. In a lot of ways, it's basically what I've done.

As I've written in my columns, a player can choose to rearrange where the Specializations fall within the Traits, as in the example (from the first column, I think) of the player who wanted his character's "Unarmed" Specialization to fall under Strength because he visualized his character as a brawny brawler.

In fact, a player could divorce a Specialization from the Traits altogether and make it a skill...let's say a character whose ability with Submission Grappling (of the Jiu-Jitsu or Pankration general type) is entirely based on training, and has little to do with his physical abilities (someone like Helio Gracie might best be written up this way - a master of Jiu-Jitsu, he could still grapple and win when he was elderly, though I'm sure his purely physical abilities had declined since his younger days).

However, a baseline of "this is where everything goes unless you decide to change it for your character" is extremely useful, not only for players new to roleplaying, but also players new to this particular system ... especially if they're trying to learn it from a book (an eventual goal of mine) instead of from a gaming group.


Oh, and I'd like to apologize if any of my responses sound rude. It's not my intention.

[Tarafore]

Where's your technical and academic abilities? There seems to be no trait(s) accommodating such hand & mind traits as lock-picking, car mechanics, languages, occult lore et cetera.

It would strike me as a bit of a stretch to shoe-horn them into Athleticism, Will or Awareness.

They're handled under skills. I was going to put a skill list in the last column, but I got hit with a major time crunch (changing jobs in the real world) and left it out.

Skills behave just like Traits, except you don't automatically have them. They're grouped more or less by "Niche," and some examples are:

Thievery: picking locks, picking pockets, sleight of hand, disguise
Drive: (by different vehicles)
Guns: Gunfighting (Handguns), Marksmanship (handguns), Gunfighting (long arms), Marksmanship (long arms)
Medicine: First Aid, Long-Term Care, Surgery, Diagnosis, Pharmacy
Science & Design: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, including knowledge and practical use
Survival: Foraging, Navigating, Tracking, Building Shelters, Trapping, etc

[Tarafore]

So do I. That's I prefer to use 'addroitness'. And I prefer 'intelect' to intelligence'. And I drop 'strengh' because I think it is best represented as a combination of coordination and size. (It's all in my past columns for RPGnet.)

I think that by arguing with you, I am missing an excellent opportunity to potentially improve my game system. I think I'm going to post into the "Game Design" forum (in order to get the largest possible audience) a brief explanation of the topic and a request for suggestions on how I can improve the placement of specializations within my traits. Putting aside my natural reaction of defending my own work, I think some of your objections have merit.

A few things won't change: the framework of broad Traits with narrower Specializations within them, the "final value" numbers so you don't add Stat + Skill, and the separation of Prowess from Athleticism and Strength (that one's non-negotiable for me...I know you don't like it, but I'm afraid I won't budge on this one).

What I see here is this: You drew a list of traits. Next you tried to map different activities into those traits. And ended with a match that lacks any compreensible rational behind it.

What I actually did was create traits to roughly cover niches, and placed the Specializations where I thought they best went in that framework. I started by trying to cover everything under Traits the way the West End Games (d6) Star Wars game did, but I didn't like the way that turned out, so I went to a set of Traits that everyone has and a set of skills, which behave the same way mechanically, but that not everyone has.

I started with one Physical Trait, and ended up dividing it into two (Strength and Prowess), then subdividing Prowess into Athleticism and Prowess (actually, one thing from Strength - Endurance - went into Athleticism).


The greatest offender is the introduction of a Prowess stat to the side of Strengh and Athleticism. Based on the passage above what would make sense would be to include power related combat abilities under Strengh and precision related combat abilities under Athleticism. The way they do damage is a subsequent issue, of course, and it is not related to the choice of basic traits.

If you do that, every gymnast or rock climber is suddenly an expert as hand to hand combat, despite the fact that attitude and very specific training (and experience) all play a huge role.

I didn't want Mary Lou Rhetton taking down Navy SEALS in hand to hand - one "Gymkata" movie was more than enough.



I am sure they have worked with you, after all, you created them, developed them and got stuck into them. The question is, do they work with other people? And do they work better than any other game in the market? I can only say that so far they don't work with me.

I've not actually played or GMed the majority of the Rocket House game sessions. Several people I've never met (online or off) have played in these games using my system. So it doesn't just work when I'm there in person to hold it all together. As I've said, I've never been 100% satisfied with the way the Traits turned out, so I think I will take this to the "Game Design" forum (as well as the Rocket House's LJ community) to get a wider number of opinions.

As far as the Traits working better than any other on the market - I couldn't say. That would be a very bold claim, and I'm not prepared put myself on the same level of pretention of, say Mark Rein*Hagen. :)

But I think this is one of the best kinds of structures or processes (broad Traits with Specializations within them, and final values that don't have to be added up in play or derived from whatever sources) for making sure player don't get blindsided ("What do you mean I'm lost? I have an Outstanding: 19 Survival Skill!" "Sorry, Navigation is a separate skill"), but also allowing them to customize their characters to as fine a level of detail as they want.

[smascrns]

Skills behave just like Traits, except you don't automatically have them. They're grouped more or less by "Niche,"
I suppose this clarifies things a lot for me. It seems that your traits are "packages" of abilities people have developped in their formative years. Does this makes sense? In this case skills are individual abilities that don't fit the basic formative process of an adult. I was not looking at it from this point of view, though. If that's so, traits are culturaly defined. "Prowess" in culture One can be very different from "Prowess" in culture Other.

[Tarafore]

I suppose this clarifies things a lot for me. It seems that your traits are "packages" of abilities people have developped in their formative years. Does this makes sense? In this case skills are individual abilities that don't fit the basic formative process of an adult.

That's exactly what I was going for! I aimed for the Traits to be basic human instincts and abilities - social interaction, noticing things, sneaking past someone, fighting, climbing, lifting, resisting others' actions directed against you, and so on.

I was not looking at it from this point of view, though. If that's so, traits are culturaly defined. "Prowess" in culture One can be very different from "Prowess" in culture Other.

Well, the Traits themselves don't vary that much in their content between cultures. What changes more is how highly rated an "average" member of various cultures would be in a given trait.

For example, an average person in a wealthy, post-industrial society (like the US or most of northern and western Europe) would have lower Prowess, Athleticism, Strength, and Awareness than, for example, an average Australian Aborigine. A sedentary life doesn't produce great physical ability (or mental awareness). On the other hand, westerners tend to have a slightly higher Rogue score, due to the constant little deceptions that grease the wheels of complex societies.

Skills could vary radically - a medieval physic and a modern surgeon's Medicine skill would amount to very different things - though often certain tech levels won't have certain skills available (no cars or airplanes in the Bronze Age).


That's not to say that the Traits themselves couldn't vary some by culture. For example, if you're making a modern character with martial arts training, it would be more realistic to increase his Unarmed specialization more than his overall Prowess, unless he's specifically been trained in weapons. You could even include an "improvised weapons" specialization to represent hitting people with chairs or bottles in a bar-type fight.

Also, a modern "Special Forces" type character might have a "Knives" specialization that covers close-combat and throwing knives, as opposed to a medieval soldier or knight character who'd most likely have hand to hand knife fighting covered under his "Swords" specialization and have a separate "Thrown Weapons" specialization to cover the various throwing weapons in common use "back then."

An "Escrimador" (either from the Philippines or someone who's studied the martial art) could have "Escrima" as a specialization, which would cover unarmed, knife, and stick/sword work within the framework of Escrima (it wouldn't be useful for sword and shield work or a big two-handed sword, for example, but would be useful for the straight sticks used in Escrima and the short swords from which the sticks were derived).

[smascrns]

That's exactly what I was going for! I aimed for the Traits to be basic human instincts and abilities - social interaction, noticing things, sneaking past someone, fighting, climbing, lifting, resisting others' actions directed against you, and so on.
It looks like a cross between skills and what I described as 'roles' in a couple of RPGnet columns (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/glove13may05.html and http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/glove27may05.html).

[JRM]

They're handled under skills. I was going to put a skill list in the last column, but I got hit with a major time crunch (changing jobs in the real world) and left it out.

Skills behave just like Traits, except you don't automatically have them. They're grouped more or less by "Niche," and some examples are:

Thievery: picking locks, picking pockets, sleight of hand, disguise
Drive: (by different vehicles)
Guns: Gunfighting (Handguns), Marksmanship (handguns), Gunfighting (long arms), Marksmanship (long arms)
Medicine: First Aid, Long-Term Care, Surgery, Diagnosis, Pharmacy
Science & Design: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, including knowledge and practical use
Survival: Foraging, Navigating, Tracking, Building Shelters, Trapping, etc

Right, If I understand you rightly you're using Traits as 'Universal human skills' that everybody has some degree of.

OK, I agree with that but will raise a couple of issues.

Firstly, tool-use and language (which you could consider the 'root' of academic and technical skills) are pretty universal human qualities. While a human infant has no inherent aptitude for pulling triggers, they do seek to communicate and manipulate objects, even if it's only "playing" with blocks or pointing at what they want.

Secondly, what about prerequisite traits? For example, a character surely needs the ability to communicate to be able to use the Rogue trait. If they have a language skill lower than their rogue skill, would that impair their ability to deceive someone?

Thirdly, what about unskilled actions? If, for example, a character with no Guns skill picks up a pistol how good - or, rather, bad - are they with it? Should this default ability vary with cultural familiarity - a 21st Century American who's never touched a gun before is likely to have a better idea what to do than a 16th Century Fijan.

Fourthly, will your skills vary in cost? Some of your examples cover far broader niches than others - e.g. Medicine and Science embrace a far wider range of specialities than Guns & Survival would, would the 'root' skill be more expensive. While we're on that subject, a Skill 'niche' may involve specialities that may relate thematically but have little overlap in the techniques. For example, making a snare and following the tracks of an edible animal may both fall under your 'Survival' example but have very few similarities, while the different types of Gun skill you list have a significant overlap in basic principles. That leads to the question of similar skills. Can you use Guns to fire Crossbows or visa-versa, is Survival:Snares and use for Thievery:Traps - assuming there is such a skill.

[Tarafore]

Right, If I understand you rightly you're using Traits as 'Universal human skills' that everybody has some degree of.

OK, I agree with that but will raise a couple of issues.

Firstly, tool-use and language (which you could consider the 'root' of academic and technical skills) are pretty universal human qualities. While a human infant has no inherent aptitude for pulling triggers, they do seek to communicate and manipulate objects, even if it's only "playing" with blocks or pointing at what they want.

I handle this by having those who lack a skill default to "Feeble: 1" rather than saying that they can't do it. While the chances of success are awful, they can still get a marginal success on an "Average Difficulty: 10" task, and higher levels of success on less difficult tasks.

In this way, I ensure that luck and instinct count for something.

Secondly, what about prerequisite traits? For example, a character surely needs the ability to communicate to be able to use the Rogue trait. If they have a language skill lower than their rogue skill, would that impair their ability to deceive someone?

Not speaking the same language would make a lot of social interaction harder. Generally, having little to no understanding would be a -6 penalty, and having a basic, conversational-but-not-fluent understanding would be -3.

Thirdly, what about unskilled actions? If, for example, a character with no Guns skill picks up a pistol how good - or, rather, bad - are they with it? Should this default ability vary with cultural familiarity - a 21st Century American who's never touched a gun before is likely to have a better idea what to do than a 16th Century Fijan.

The default for unskilled use is generally "Feeble: 1." However, sometimes people in a culture have certain skills at "Very Bad: 4" (or sometimes higher) just by growing up there. For example, Americans have seen guns used on TV many times, so they know the basics of point and shoot. This gives them a default of "Very Bad: 4" with guns.

Fourthly, will your skills vary in cost? Some of your examples cover far broader niches than others - e.g. Medicine and Science embrace a far wider range of specialities than Guns & Survival would, would the 'root' skill be more expensive. While we're on that subject, a Skill 'niche' may involve specialities that may relate thematically but have little overlap in the techniques. For example, making a snare and following the tracks of an edible animal may both fall under your 'Survival' example but have very few similarities, while the different types of Gun skill you list have a significant overlap in basic principles. That leads to the question of similar skills. Can you use Guns to fire Crossbows or visa-versa, is Survival:Snares and use for Thievery:Traps - assuming there is such a skill.

The primary character creation method is subjective, so nothing costs anything.

In the secondary, template-based character creation method, the skills all cost the same. This is partly for simplicity's sake, and partly because the broader skills seem to be the ones that don't come up as often or can be gotten around more easily.

"Science and Design" is much broader than "Guns," but both serve as a "niche." A gunman will more likely dominate a game (think Roland from Stephen King's <i>Dark Tower</i> series) than a scientist. Though both have their place in roleplaying games, I'm certainly not going to charge he researcher more for his "niche" than I charge the gunslinger.

[Thanuir]

I've seen it done (and written games where it's done) before, too. And it's simpler in theory, but much more complicated in practice. WHAT do the traits include? Does "police training" include Drive? Shoot? Computers? Undercover work? Riding Horses? Working with Dogs? First Aid?

What does "day care worker" include? By law, they're required to take a first aid class each year -but does that put them at the same level as "Paramedic?"That's mostly up to the player, anyway, given your subjetive chargen. And, if in doubt, there are people playing. People are able to ask "Did they teach your char any first aid while she was a cop?"

[Tarafore]

That's mostly up to the player, anyway, given your subjetive chargen. And, if in doubt, there are people playing. People are able to ask "Did they teach your char any first aid while she was a cop?"

That's how we used to do it when we used those stats. I just found that it's easier (and takes less time up once play has begun) to have a more specific list of abilities. Also, other GM's sometimes threw curveballs, like disallowing "First Aid" as part of police training . . . and then I'm kind of stuck - I thought my character was supposed to have that ability, but now he doesn't.


I just found it much easier in practice to have a clear baseline from which to vary. Especially since the players can rearrange them somewhat to better fit their character concepts.

[Paul DuPont]

Well, I tend to develop very well defined skills and related traits. My current aims are to first define the characters. Secondarily, to make those traits play out in the system. Because I care more about the definition, I prefer organising my systems along the attribute and skill model (well, a very mutated version of in most cases). I design lots of 'exotic' settings. In those settings, definition is much more important because the actors are less familiar with it and need more guidance from the game system. At the same time, one of my most complete skill systems is for a game set in our era, it happens to work well with the themes of that game.

My point is, you should consider making some more 'detailed' lists for certain genres and settings to help players make characters for those settings. As you said, it is for reference and people are more than welcome to change it but it creates a reference point for them.

I'll be looking for your thread in the Game Design forum.