I can't decide whether to have a straightforward list of skills, or whether to have a smaller broader list of 'base' skills with specialisations within. Which is best and why? What is the reason for using specialisations in the design of a game?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;598044I can't decide whether to have a straightforward list of skills, or whether to have a smaller broader list of 'base' skills with specialisations within. Which is best and why? What is the reason for using specialisations in the design of a game?

Which do you prefer as a game design philosphy:

You can do anything except what the rules say you can't?

or

You can only do what the rules say you can?

I find a small number of base categories with specialisations can be a bit easier to hold in your head because there is more structure. Even if the total list of specialisations is exactly the same as the "one big list of skills"!

For a system I set up I used a 3 tier skill system

Generic
Broad
Specific

Now in this system there was no skill list he players picked whatever skills they wanted.

In play any skill use is specific.

Generic users get a -2 degrees on a 5 point system to all specific checks
Broad get a -1 to a specific skill in their field or -3 in a related skill
Specialist get 0 minus in their spcialism but -4 in a related skill

So A characters has Science as a Generic skill he has 4 ranks in Science.

If he gets faced with a problem to work out the rate of decay of a radioactive element that may dmaage the team he has a skill of 2.
If he has to work out the vector of infection of a disease he has 2 skill.
If he needs to create a bomb from fertiliser and sugar he has 2 skill

Another character has Medicine 4 (a Broad Skill) and Zoology 3 a Specific Skill (which would sit in Science - Biology0

So if he needs to work out he rate of decay of a radioactive element he is still in the Science generic area but has no real knowlege of specifics so he has a linked broad skill Medicine therefore he has 1 skill in this specific area.
Vector of an infectious disease. A specific under medicine so skill -1 = 3 skill (the specific skill would be Pathology)

Now if there was a specifc Zooology question identify the species from this footprint or Spoore then he woudl ahve 3 skill.

The system migh feel loose but that is because the player can pick any skill they can think of.

In addition players can get a generic Skill Science and can add specifics so Science 4 - Medicine +2 - Surgery +1:Pathology +2  this means they have spent 9 skill points and end up with in effect
Science checks - 2
Medicine checks - 4
Surgery - 4
Pathology - 5

Generic areas could be

Science
Art
Culture
Languages
Athletics

Broad areas could be

Biology
Chemistry
Music
Performance
Espionage

Specific skills could be

Zoology
Balistics
Play acordian
Poetry
Disguise
Cryptography
Stealth

Specific skill might appear under different Broad groups


The advantage is if you are playing a Spy for example you can give him Espionage 3 and he will have 2 skill in any related activity from Cryptography to Disguise. It kind of acts like a secondary skill in 1e D&D. But you can also make them a master of Cryptography by spending 3 more points  on that specific skill.

Quote from: taustin;598090Which do you prefer as a game design philosphy:

You can do anything except what the rules say you can't?

or

You can only do what the rules say you can?

the former, ostensibly.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;598186the former, ostensibly.

Then you want as broad of skills as you're willing to deal with. Or character classes, even[1]. You could nest increasingly deailed levels of sub-specialization, as well, for ever decreasing costs, the way (sort of) Hero or EABA do. You could have

A general combat skill (familiarity with common melee)
A specialization with firearms
A sub-specialization with pistols
A sub-sub-specialization with the Browning Hi-Power
A sub-sub-sub-specialization with the Browning Hi-Power using subsonic loads

And so on.

You can pick the level of detail you're comfortable with, and simply ignore evethting below that. So can your players.

[1]Or go even more generic than that, like Top Secret does, where all player characters are assumed to be proficient in spy craft. There is no lock picking skill, because everyone is trained in how to pick locks. How well depends on character traits, but character traits have a minimum rather higher than the average person's, so pretty much any character could open a normal door lock in a matter of seconds.

I went with the skill tree for my system.  I have a collection of very generic root skills and each branching is a specialization.  The skill ranks are cumulative, meaning the branch skill takes the ranking of the root into its calculations.  So, you could have Ranged (1) ->  Firearms (2) -> Pistol (3):  Ranged is 1, Firearms is 3 (1+2), and Pistol is 6 (1+2+3).

In comparison to a flat skill list, it keeps everything organized and reduces a lot of confusion when it comes to skills with similar domains.  It also allows a natural feeling of skill growth and it already has sensible synenergy built into the mechanics.  As a benefit, you can have a skill fallback system where a character lacking a specific skill can fall back to less specific skill.  It does take a bit of planning to get everything together and ready.

I can't help thinking that a skill tree/specialisation system needs something for it to be worth while. Some games like to have a ton of skills and so specialisation makes some sense (science - bilogy - astrobiology - vulcanian physiology - mindmelds). But that's not what I want; i prefer a more concist list and so it may be better to par things down to a smaller list and not have specialisations. Therefore that something is what's needed, I think. I just don't know what that something is.

Also, with respect to the idea above, I think using negatives as a representation of skill specialisations seems counter intuitive.