Topic: Skill "synergy"

[GrumpyOldFart]

No Not Skill Synergy    Burn, Skill Synergy, Burn!

It seems to me to be the logic underlying TPs, along with context. I like the idea more in practice than in principle.

Damnit, I meant to say "in principle more than in practice".

I've given some thought to "skill synergy" and "supplementary skills" in the past, and decided to let the logic piranha at the results.

The way I see it, the real priorities are:

1. Any synergy mechanic must give the player a reason to want to have the supplementary skills, in other words there has to be an advantage that justifies spending the DPs (or whatever he uses to express his development choices in the context of the character sheet, depending on the game system.)

2. No amount of ranks in any number of supplementary skills should give you so much of an advantage as to really change the power balance of the game. Always useful, but never so useful that lack of them becomes effectively "suicide by dumb player choices".

3. Whatever mechanic is used to simulate this can't be "too fiddly", if it noticeably slows the game or causes a paperwork/info tracking hassle, it's not worth it.

Personally I've played ICE games almost exclusively since the early 80s, so I tend to think in terms of the 5/2/1 diminishing return for skills. I long ago accepted the rationale that the first 10 ranks are "the fundamentals", the next 10 are "mastering the skill" and everything beyond that is "finishing touches".

With that in mind, what I've come up with as a tentative solution for the issue of supplementary skills is this:

Supplementary skills can add to the bonus of the primary skill in specific situations, for example Tracking skill can add to Foraging & Survival if you are foraging for something that leaves tracks. Such skills modify the primary skill by +1 per skill rank, with no accounting for stat bonuses or any other considerations. Only the fundamentals of the supplementary skill apply to the primary skill, so the +1/rank bonus maxes out at +10 for any given supplementary skill. More than one supplementary skill can be applied to a primary skill, to a maximum of 3.

So... you can modify skill rolls using related skills, but only up to +30, and in order to get that +30 you have to have at least 10 ranks in 3 other skills that all apply to your current situation.

Thoughts?

[Marc R]

I think a lot of the problems with skill bloat evolve out of a desire for something for nothing.

"C'mon, I'm a trained herbalist, I proscribe drugs, don't I know how to. . ."

Perform first aid
Diagnose illness
Set bones
Flora lore
etc
etc

When you have few, broad skills, you tend to get less arguments about "but can't I also". . .when you have hordes of narrow skills people start to argue more about "but can't I also".

This leads to RM2 "Skill Similarity" or RMSS "Skill Category Ranks" which do work to fix the issue from the starting points of the skill sets involved.

On the other hand, if the GM says "If you wanted to do first aid, you should have paid DP to get ranks in it" that's a valid point too.

If you have enough DP to buy the skills needed to cover a reasonable concept, this problem shouldn't arise except with someone attempting to be abusive, but if you have either too many skills, or too few DP, then even reasonable, non power gaming people want some non power gaming relief in the form of some extra skill at zero cost to round out and cover their concept.

In practice, at my table, I've tended to either cull the skill choices down, or raise the DP per level (which requires additional oversight on where it's being spent) to get to a balance that works at my table, with my players, for that particular given game. This may vary from campaign to campaign, even with the same players.

[RandalThor]

Personally I've played ICE games almost exclusively since the early 80s, so I tend to think in terms of the 5/2/1 diminishing return for skills. I long ago accepted the rationale that the first 10 ranks are "the fundamentals", the next 10 are "mastering the skill" and everything beyond that is "finishing touches".

Though the numbers don't really bear that out, except for the "finishing touches" part. The difference between fundamentals and master shouldn't be ~20, imo. (Of course, that number changes with the different editions and the use of category vs. individual skill.)

Maybe the skill synergy can work by granting bonuses to "side" skills when a character reaches a certain number of ranks in a given skill. That way, the master with 25 ranks get something other than a small bonus over a lower skilled character. Like, instead of Disarm and Feint being separate skills, they are maneuvers using the skill at hand (whatever weapon/attack style being used at the time) and the skill level (novice, apprentice, trained, master, etc...) works against the opponents skill level to determine a modifier for the maneuver. What chart it goes on would depend upon the maneuver itself, I would imagine.

[RandalThor]

i tell ya, I am getting to like the method in ES: Skyrim on how to increase skills, but putting that into practice in a TTRPG is proving a bit problematic.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I think a lot of the problems with skill bloat evolve out of a desire for something for nothing.

I'm sure there's some of that. Most game systems are designed to make sure a player has to work at it to "cover all the bases", and usually have some things he's simply not any good at. Given that, it's hardly surprising for players to try to stretch to cover all they can.

However,

"C'mon, I'm a trained herbalist, I proscribe drugs, don't I know how to. . ."

Perform first aid
Diagnose illness
Set bones
Flora lore
etc
etc

There's a certain amount of validity to that, even in the face of

"If you wanted to do first aid, you should have paid DP to get ranks in it"

which is likewise a valid point.

That's why I was thinking okay, there's some bleed over... but not much. The herbalist has a point about first aid and flora lore, not so much about diagnosis and setting bones. After all, he doesn't really prescribe drugs, he sells drugs to those who do. Diagnosis/triage is first aid.

The reason I wanted pretty stark limits on it was because... okay let's take the example I used up at the top, using Tracking as a supplement to Foraging. The condition I threw in was that it's only a valid supplementary skill if you're foraging for something that leaves tracks, and on the surface that seems not merely reasonable, but obvious. Fish don't leave tracks, so Tracking doesn't apply when you're trying to get some fish. But I can easily imagine a player bringing up the perfectly valid point that "Sure it does, I'm checking bear tracks to find out where the best salmon fishing spots are."

See? Precisely because

This may vary from campaign to campaign, even with the same players.

if you're going to use combinations of skills in any fashion you have little choice but to leave the GM a wide latitude in how it's implemented. There are too many variables to try to predict what will apply and make sense in context of the story the GM and players are building.

That's why I felt like if a mechanic is included for it at all, it has to be dirt simple, and so sharply limited that it can be thrown in nearly anywhere without having more than minor effects. Skill synergy becomes the GM's equivalent of Mardi Gras beads. They're not actually worth anything to speak of, but they're fun and make everyone feel better when they get thrown one.

I mean think about it... +30 limit? So the maximum difference skill synergy can ever make to a skill roll is about the same as the typical difference a 1st level fighter makes to his opponent's attack roll by doing a full parry, right?

 

[GrumpyOldFart]

Like, instead of Disarm and Feint being separate skills, they are maneuvers using the skill at hand (whatever weapon/attack style being used at the time) and the skill level (novice, apprentice, trained, master, etc...) works against the opponents skill level to determine a modifier for the maneuver.

Sounds like HARP's combat maneuvers.

Though the numbers don't really bear that out, except for the "finishing touches" part. The difference between fundamentals and master shouldn't be ~20, imo. (Of course, that number changes with the different editions and the use of category vs. individual skill.)

I agree, they don't. I've often thought 5/3/2/1 would be a better progression, but I'm too lazy to be willing to redo absolutely everything to bring it into balance with a change that fundamental.

[RandalThor]

Sounds like HARP's combat maneuvers.

Yet another reason I lean towards HARP....for some things.

I agree, they don't. I've often thought 5/3/2/1 would be a better progression, but I'm too lazy to be willing to redo absolutely everything to bring it into balance with a change that fundamental.

And I am leaning towards having the ranks just cost more as they get "higher" instead of decreased gain for the same cost. (I know, some would say "half-a-dozen/6" but for me how it feels/makes sense is as important as how easy or hard it is to implement. Understand?) Example: I am more willing to take extra time before/between games because of more complicated rules on chargen and advancement, than in game performing actions. Which is why I am OK with more detailed/"realistic" rules for pre-game stuff like in RMFRP/SS, but like the one-roll mechanic for combat in HARP. When I am not actually sitting down to play, I am more than willing to take a long time to get my character together, but when actually playing, I want things to be able to move quickly.

[yammahoper]

Our group has a universal skill that provides synergy in all situations: Battle Axe.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I've heard of the universal "run away like a scared little hobbit biatch" skill, I guess this is the opposite of that one.

 

[Cory Magel]

I don't really have any preference between the RM2 and RMSS skill systems, either one works just fine for me.  I suspect most RMSS users could live with the RM2 skills, but I don't know as if the RM2 users could live with the RMSS one.

However, I think the RMSS skill system is an attempt to simulate "similar skill" carry over in a sense.  A less direct connection is that you're essentially leaning the basics of a whole bunch of similar skills, so developing the "Catagory" gives you some knowledge in all the related skills.  A more direct approach is to simply see it as developing various skills of a similar nature can teach you the basics of others, but the way you purchase ranks in the category doesn't seem to reflect that interpretation.

The real problem with the RMSS system in my opinion is that you'll never create a perfect "similar skill" relationship system, so you might as well keep it simple.  I also think that the percentages are off to simulate what I think it's trying to simulate (i.e. 2 points for category and 3 points for specific skill isn't the right balance, it should probably be more like 1:4).

[markc]

The real problem with the RMSS system in my opinion is that you'll never create a perfect "similar skill" relationship system, so you might as well keep it simple.  I also think that the percentages are off to simulate what I think it's trying to simulate (i.e. 2 points for category and 3 points for specific skill isn't the right balance, it should probably be more like 1:4).

 I agree and I am thinking about starting at 1:5 and going from there.
MDC