Quote from: mcbobbo;688118Your first example was closer, but we need to pivot it.

Computers
   Combat Utility - 0
   Social Utility - 5
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 10
Combat
   Combat Utility - 10
   Social Utility - 0
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 0
Speak French
   Combat Utility - 0
   Social Utility - 2
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 0

I am picturing a quick 'quiz' you run an ability through that scores it generically.  Then you weight those scores for your setting/product/table.

This seems like its going in the right direction. (With respect to your design goals in any case - for me it looks like more trouble than I really want to be bothered with).

Nitpicking specifics, I'm not sure combat doesn't have some social utility (dare you look funny at someone who can rip your arms off?).
I think you may want further categories beyond social as well; perhaps for information-based abilities (Knowledges and such).

Beyond the general idea, I can't comment on costs much without having a system to look at the context. In particularly how much costs increase as skill levels go up, and how difficulty ratings are assigned - 1 rank of a skill needn't be equivalent in value to 1 rank of another skill, if they have very different difficulty ratings/situations where used. Compare systems where Drive skill has to be raised to 100% to not crash on the way to the supermarket and one where a check is made only on exxtreme tasks - in the former case Drive is a bigger point drain to reach competency even though both systems have the same cost.

Actually, if this winds up having valur then it should work with lots of systems.

So please pick your favorite and see if we can come up with more examples.

This is neat.  It sounds like the Next guys have a similar idea:

QuoteIn the D&D Next design, we've try to move away from putting those same things in the same bucket. So class design will speak to different styles  of gameplay – exploration, roleplay, and combat – but they're not going to choose between, "I want to take this roleplay option" and then screw my buddies because I chose a poor-mechanical option. So I think a lot of the design direction we've gone so far is to try to isolate those things. You might have a benefit that pops in at some level that gives you an exploration benefit and a combat benefit.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/63941

Quote from: mcbobbo;688118Your first example was closer, but we need to pivot it.

Computers
   Combat Utility - 0
   Social Utility - 5
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 10
Combat
   Combat Utility - 10
   Social Utility - 0
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 0
Speak French
   Combat Utility - 0
   Social Utility - 2
   Genre (Cyberpunk) Emphasis - 0

I am picturing a quick 'quiz' you run an ability through that scores it generically.  Then you weight those scores for your setting/product/table.

I believe this is an awful lot of work for a game widgit. For one thing this weighting doesn't account for something used in an unexpected manner (which is kind of normal for rpg play).

For example computers in a cyberpunk genre game can be useful for combat. Using computer skills to bypass security so you can walk in and shoot people in the head would hardly be classified as "social".

I just don't see how this system could be accurate without shutting down player creativity. Either the abilities can only do what they are rated to do and actual applications players may devise are nerfed, or the rated scores are largely meaningless when engaged by clever, creative players.

This is an issue so many highly mechanized systems have.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690795For example computers in a cyberpunk genre game can be useful for combat. Using computer skills to bypass security so you can walk in and shoot people in the head would hardly be classified as "social".

I'll point out that one of the examples in the core CP2020 book was using a computer during combat to hack an automated cargo AV and drop it on the opposition.  Not very social at all.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690795I believe this is an awful lot of work for a game widgit. For one thing this weighting doesn't account for something used in an unexpected manner (which is kind of normal for rpg play).

For example computers in a cyberpunk genre game can be useful for combat. Using computer skills to bypass security so you can walk in and shoot people in the head would hardly be classified as "social".

I just don't see how this system could be accurate without shutting down player creativity. Either the abilities can only do what they are rated to do and actual applications players may devise are nerfed, or the rated scores are largely meaningless when engaged by clever, creative players.

This is an issue so many highly mechanized systems have.

It doesn't shut down creativity, because it provides an incentive to take genre sub-optimal skills because they are so cheap. This provides opportunities for players to then abuse those sub-optimal skills that they wouldn't otherwise have -

Quote from: Panzerkraken;691620I'll point out that one of the examples in the core CP2020 book was using a computer during combat to hack an automated cargo AV and drop it on the opposition.  Not very social at all.

like this.

Quote from: apparition13;691622It doesn't shut down creativity, because it provides an incentive to take genre sub-optimal skills because they are so cheap. This provides opportunities for players to then abuse those sub-optimal skills that they wouldn't otherwise have -

like this.

Designing more complex mechanics for the sole purpose of exploitation and abuse just seems like a waste of time. You can exploit and abuse a rules-light system with much less work.