Topic: What Does "Skill Category" Mean?

[David Johansen]

They had as much chance to purchase Lock Picking as the thief did and chose not to.  It seems like quite the oversight for a lock smith.  Even so, I'd probably let him try to completely disassemble the mechanism  

What you're really asking about there is how discrete skills are.  I like them as discrete units, though there are a few WTF ones like Tracking and Reading Tracks in RMSS.  I generally rule that one can give the other a synergy bonus with a second static maneuver as per the static maneuver table.

[pastaav]

In general I think the concept of weak categories is something worth keeping in mind when the new edition is done. I have earlier referred to Vroomfogles great work at reverse engineering the present costs. There was a couple of skill costs that was hard to replicate correctly without the skills being in different categories. Even if it is possible to work around those there might be other reasons why weak categories is wanted.

On the other hand I think it perfectly possible to set up the skills and categories so that strong categories work. If we take the example you are discussing in this thread then the real problem is that you are using a skill list that is flawed. The idea that a character might be expert in fine mechanics like locksmithing, but not being able to use his other skill in anything other is stupid. The correct skill list would have the skills lock lore and the skill fine mechanics. If the thief is great at lockpicking then he should also be able to use his skills for related crafts. The same applies to dealing with traps. To say that a character is unable to use wood tools for making a house, but a master on using wood tools to construct a trap is silly. On the reverse the lock picking lore knowledge would be essential for opening the lock in any timely fashion. The reason lockpicking can open the lock is because it is assumed some part of the lore about locks is gained through practice. Imagine a the master clock maker with a master skill in lock lore...would he really be unable to combine his two skills to solve the problem?

It is great when you can have a skill that include everything about a task, this is true for swimming and a number of other skills. The downside of enforcing a single skill for a task is that then you end with situations when the skills become so narrow that you need another skill just because it supposed to be taken by another professional. In many cases the system already has a lore skill and a "skill" skill, but the RM designers didn't follow things to their logical conclusion. Make a better skill list/ category list and the problem go away.

Looking at the starting questions

1) A group of skills that share a thematic concept?

This is true for those categories that have category progression. Need not to be true for categories that use the combined progression.

2) Is it a grouping you can learn together with category Ranks?

In some cases yes and in some cases no. RMSS shows with great success that there is need for both and that they can coexist with minimal bookkeeping.

3) is it skills that share the same cost?

For the first printing of RMSS that was not true. Yet, I do think all skills within a category should share the same cost.
 

4) is it skills that use the same stats (or 2 of the same stat with one differing?)

I think it is a good idea for the skills to share the same stats, but really this has nothing to do with the category concept. You can have skills share stats totally independent on categories.

If we sum it up...there are plenty of relationships between skills. In some cases the skills are very tightly connected to an archtype like thief, athlet, diplomat etc.  those cases the category ranks are essential to model reality. Other types of relationships is more tied to them sharing stats. In yet other cases the skills are tied together better by belonging to training packages. You could have a set up when you get some extra benefit if you buy a certain set of skills (beastmaster spells can be taken during a lever if you also buy skills related to animal handling).

The idea that you need to nail down exactly what is meant by categories before discussion can happen is IMHO not correct. Communication is about understanding the context of what is said. The category mechanics will serve different purposes for different categories, I think the forum readers are well equipped to handle any ambiguity that is caused by this.   

[Grinnen Baeritt]

GB,

You're the GM in an RMSS game, a bunch of PCs are locked inside metal boxes the size of a phone booth that can be opened with a key from the inside or outside. They have their usual gear with them, including light sources and tools suitable to lock picking with them.

#1 is a thief, has ranks in S:M and Lock Picking, and a +100.

#2 is a clockmaker, has ranks in Crafts, and Crafting: Clockwork devices, total bonus of +100. No ranks in S:M or Lockpicking.

#3 is a locksmith, has ranks in Technical Trade / Vocational and Locksmith, total bonus of +100. No ranks in S:M or Lockpicking.

Most GMs would allow #1 to pick their way out at +100, then let #2 and #3 attempt it at some penalty. . .likely #3 at less of a penalty than #2. Only the most hardcore "Rule as written" GMs would make #2 and #3 make their attempts at an effective bonus of -25 "no skill".

Would you make them both roll against -25 "no skill" or use your judgement, apply a penalty to their applicable skill and let them use it?

Ah...I'd never make them roll at -25 unskilled. It would be -30, modified by the applicble stat bonuses .

#1 unmodified, #2 at +70 and #3 at +100!

Because both #2 & #3 acceptable similar specific skills... I might even of allowed someone with specific Surgery or Mechanisation a reasonable attempt because the tools are available.. Pick locks is simply a "dumbed down" of Locksmith, which costs far more to develop as a skill.

If any have the Lock Lore skill then I'd actually give them a SM roll using that (or the Lore:Technical category bonus at -15 if they havent) first to see if they recieve a bonus!

But then again I'd have treated the Locksmith "skill" as a Craft in the first place. As a GM I do use category ranks in Crafting and all Tech/trade skills.. I don't treat them as combined...

My point was that even without a specific "skill" the system could concievably allow a player to use a trained category bonus (at -15) as a replacement for a untrained skill in another category. Obviously there would have to be some sort of rationale behind the attempt, and as in the cases you mooted, it may just be that there is a similar skill to the one being tested in that category.

There is more than one way to cook and egg... most people do it the best way they can.

[Marc R]

I agree. . .and I do see a lot of good in the RMSS skill system, but if you have a RAW GM, they will tell you "You should have purchased lock picking, wait for jimmy to get himself out, then he can let you out."

OTOH I still recall the chain of similarity where 20 ranks of Dance = 1 rank of Arcane Lore. That logic got completely and utterly wacky out of control in RM2. . .I can just see a master dancer interjecting "That there is an arcane rune used to open the necronimicon's final resting place, the tomb of K'tal B-ehar. . .just something you pick up dancing, you know."

But all that said, I was just saying you should all be clear when discussing revision. . .because eventually people figure it out, that's when the fighting starts over "That's not what I said" or "That's not what I meant.". . .better to be clear up front. . .and to be open to the fact that we all bend the rules to make sense at times, and do it so often that we assume that is the rule. . .but it's not, except in the sense that "The GM can change whatever they want" has always been in the rule. . .

Often, we get into these discussions and say things like "Skill categories work smoothly in all situations." when what we mean is "Skill categories plus my judgement as a GM work smoothly in all situations.". . . .they key being that the first statement is not 100% true unless we can capture your judgment as the GM in the rules as written somehow.

[markc]

 I always thought that the cross between Dancing and MiA was a little strange.


MDC

[Cory Magel]

I think that trying to create categories will always have moderately serious problems in explanation.  Better to make stats more important, which simulates being good at partially related skills.

A case could be made that skills might raise your potential stats once you reach a certain level in that skill rather than skills cross-relating due to category.  Say, somewhere between 30-50 ranks in a skill you gain 1 potential point in it's primary stat.  You learn 30 ranks in Dancing, your potential AG goes up by one, which in turn leads to a slightly better MA:Strikes skill due to it's Primary stat being AG.  No category needed.  Course, we're creeping back towards 'complicated' again.  Maybe a future optional rule.

A semi-side comment.  Those who think they are losing potential DP's and skill gain by going from having categories to not having them, this could be easily made up by the fact that you are gaining 5 when developing a specific skill (instead of 3) and the fact that skill costs will most likely get tinkered with it categories went away.  You wouldn't really be losing much, if anything.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I always thought that the cross between Dancing and MiA was a little strange.


MDC

I always thought it was unusual that someone might try... though not necessarily the reasoning behind why there is

To me the MIA categories are just there to calculate the effects that experience of wearing armour have on the attempts to practice other skills, they are not there to be used in exclusion.

[markc]

I always thought that the cross between Dancing and MiA was a little strange.


MDC

I always thought it was unusual that someone might try... though not necessarily the reasoning behind why there is

To me the MIA categories are just there to calculate the effects that experience of wearing armour have on the attempts to practice other skills, they are not there to be used in exclusion.

 I was also surprised how many warriors in a game I played in were great dancers. They should have maybe done a dance show for $ when were were poor instead of what we usually did.