Fear not, dear reader, this is not a huge treatsie, it is merely an observation with the intent to converse.

I have a vast library of game books, many of them for games no one has ever heard of. Others are from reputable companies.  Skills have been a matter of some concern, if you will the fulcrum upon which a game can turn. Attributes, or stats, can be easy enough to 'invent' or 'steal', and their influence easy enough to measure. Skills, for some reason always seem much more problematic.

Recently I've been taking a longer look at GoO's skill system.  Back in the early days they didn't even have one, and that 1st edition BeSM was actually quite clever (and ironically, close in some ways to what I had hoped to emulate in my own work... a game that revolves around those things that make a character unique...).  

GoO's philosophy for skills seems to be largely unique, in that the more popular the skill, the more expensive they make it, regardless of how easy or hard it is to learn. According to their books it's based on utility in the game, but I don't see that following. Acrobatics, for example, is always expensive yet has little actual value compared to other skills... at least as written.

I can see what the intent was, though it grates against the 'rational realist' inside me. If someone can learn to shoot a gun in a few hours at a range, why should it be the dominant point sink of a character, meaning that shooters are inherently stupider than everyone else?

But the rational is clear.  Lets see if I can articulate it. The more valuable something is, the more value it should have. Combat skills are necessarily high in a game that is likely to include violence.  

Leaving aside questions about the relative merits of the GoO skill system in actual play... it does have a tacked on feel about it... the implementation, however, sucks.   If the rational is good, why does the actual system earn so much ire from fans?  Am I imagining this? I don't think I am, I know that it is the only part of the system that gives me a headache.  It's a simple game, and the skill system doesn't fit.

But how is it broken?

First is the relative costs compared to the available resources. Skill points tend to be thin on the ground. I don't think anyone would be comfortable when becoming the worlds greatest baskeweaver (six ranks in a cost one skill) is roughly the same as having studied a bit of gymnastics as a child (one level in a cost six skill). I've seen takes on it where the cost wasn't addative, but exponential... it doesn't help.

Now, one rank represents a minimal level of training, and in...say.. Silver age Sentinals combat skills average a cost per level of 8. You start with a whopping 30 points.  We see a serious difficulty in scaling this. Very nearly one third your life has been spent learning the basics of shooting a gun.

I ask you this? Is the rational a valid one from a design standpoint? Do you think that game utility should be the sole arbiter of ability? Have you seen this philosophy used in other games? Better or worse?

Quote from: SpikeGoO's philosophy for skills seems to be largely unique, in that the more popular the skill, the more expensive they make it, regardless of how easy or hard it is to learn. According to their books it's based on utility in the game, but I don't see that following. Acrobatics, for example, is always expensive yet has little actual value compared to other skills... at least as written.

Just because they intended to make the more valuable skills more expensive doesn't mean they succeeded.  I've never played Guardians of Order, nor even read the system, but can tell you that while their goal is laudible, attaining it is not easy.

QuoteI can see what the intent was, though it grates against the 'rational realist' inside me. If someone can learn to shoot a gun in a few hours at a range, why should it be the dominant point sink of a character, meaning that shooters are inherently stupider than everyone else?

But the rational is clear.  Lets see if I can articulate it. The more valuable something is, the more value it should have. Combat skills are necessarily high in a game that is likely to include violence.

A system as you describe it has nothing to do with modelling a character's intelligence.  Rather, it has everything to do with forcing players to make character-defining choices.  What you're trying to do with this kind of design is allow a player to make decisions based on his character concept rather than have it be based purely on game considerations.  For example, suppose I wanted to have a knife fighter character in a RoleMaster or D&D campaign.  That is, I want a kick-ass fighter character primarily focused on wielding daggers.  Unfortunately, if another player decides to design a fighter character that wields a large battle-axe, he is going to completely overshadow my knife fighter in those systems.  Consequently, the next time I design a fighter character, I am going to naturally shy away from knife fighters and focus on large weapons in order to be effective.  That is not a slam on those systems, BTW.  The designs reflect the goals of the designers.  That is, the design models what the designer's felt was "realistic" with the genre.  Daggers are less effective than other weapons because, in their view, that is the way it should be.

Now, if I want to balance things out between different skills so as to encourage knife fighters as well as axe-wielders, I have a couple of choices:

1) I can just design my rules so that all weapons are all essentially identical from a game rules standpoint.
2) I can design my rules so that weapons are different in various meaningful ways, but the overall effectiveness of different weapons is the same.

Or, if we want to broaden our scope to include all skills:

1) I can just design my rules so that all skills are all essentially identical from a game rules standpoint.
2) I can design my rules so that skills are different in various meaningful ways, but the overall effectiveness of different skills is the same.

The first option is pretty easy to accomplish in a game design, but doesn't give players much of a tactical reason to choose one skill over another in game scenarios.

The second option provides more tactically interesting options for players, but is far more difficult to design.

QuoteFirst is the relative costs compared to the available resources. Skill points tend to be thin on the ground. I don't think anyone would be comfortable when becoming the worlds greatest baskeweaver (six ranks in a cost one skill) is roughly the same as having studied a bit of gymnastics as a child (one level in a cost six skill). I've seen takes on it where the cost wasn't addative, but exponential... it doesn't help.

Now, one rank represents a minimal level of training, and in...say.. Silver age Sentinals combat skills average a cost per level of 8. You start with a whopping 30 points.  We see a serious difficulty in scaling this. Very nearly one third your life has been spent learning the basics of shooting a gun.

From what you describe I see hints at a couple of potential problems.  The first is that I suspect that the "basketweaver" skill has extremely little value, if any, in the game.  If that's the case, then the mistake is even including it as an option.  Every time you add something that does not at least peripherally address your game's focus (whatever that is), you dilute its potency.  Instead, you should spend your efforts on skills that players want from a game standpoint.  If an ability is something that has some value in a game and adds to a character's persona, but isn't really something that can give them a big advantage in conflicts, then write it up as a gift rather than a skill.  That is, a player can choose the "basketweaving" gift for his character, but can't gain ranks in it.

The other, somewhat related, problem is the matter of granularity.  Thirty points isn't a lot to spend, assuming that characters don't eventually start earning hundreds or thousands more eventually.  If a character can expect to get a maximum of 100 or so "skill points" throughout his career, then each one is precious.  Spending 6 of them on "basketweaving" is just way too expensive.

QuoteI ask you this? Is the rational a valid one from a design standpoint? Do you think that game utility should be the sole arbiter of ability?

The rationale is quite valid.  Whether or not game utility is or isn't the sole arbiter of ability depends entirely on your design goals.  For some games, yes, this is a good choice.  For others, no.  If you're trying to model "reality", then this design strategy is questionable.

QuoteHave you seen this philosophy used in other games? Better or worse?

Yes.  Legendary Quest uses this philosophy, although I don't explicitly state it in the game text.  If it isn't too immodest to say so, the system works extremely well.  For example, I have been complimented many times on how well the various weapon choices are "balanced".  Even so, I have been working on improving it further in LQ's 8th edition, even going so far as to write a program to analyze weapon and skill characteristics.  The program makes sure effects I incorporate in one weapon or skill are applied consistently throughout all other weapons and skills, so as to avoid favoring one over another from a game standpoint.

Thanks for the long reply, John.  

To be perfectly honest, I've seen this done before, just never so blatently or openly. Its not the worst part of the skill system by a long shot, no. As stated in the OP, the entire skill system was added to an existing game design and doesn't really feel as if it belongs.

One game that springs to mind is Maurader 2107. I'm not sure if anyone has heard of it, or even if they should have. Regardless... you have skills with various costs, which are a mix between utility and percieved difficulty (unlike the GoO system, where utility is the sole deciding factor) the key there is that the expensive skills run to four points per level, and the default is one... while having a larger pool of points to work with and a skill system that is fully integrated into character design.


Basketweaving would fall in GoO terms into a 'color' skill, which falls into a 1 pt per level catagory. The default cost for a skill is in the 2-3 pt range, with more useful skills costing more.

The interesting thing to me is that it specifically keeps you from porting characters around in 'genres'. Consider that a character from a gritty urban drama has to pay 8 pts to be marginally capable with a gun, but for those same 8 points can be one hell of a car driver, as the GM/Designer figured car driving wasn't going to be a huge factor in the game.  That same character finds himself in a blasted wasteland, sort of Road Warrior/Car Wars setting... maybe just outside the city, maybe via the magic of dimension hopping, and suddenly, he's the best driver around because driving costs THOSE characters 8 points a level, while their gun skill only costs them, say, five.

And god forbid a character from a magical girl drama shows up. Her Gun skill would be 1 point per level, 'cause guns are kinda pointless in her world

Now, from a designer standpoint, why care, right? Only, players are wacky people, and mixing and matching genres and sourcebooks is a way of life for some. If everything else is compatable, why go wonky in skills?

I don't have my copy of the revised second edition in front of me so this is from memory

Quote from: SpikeI ask you this? Is the rational a valid one from a design standpoint? Do you think that game utility should be the sole arbiter of ability? Have you seen this philosophy used in other games? Better or worse?

Well it's BESM, it's not designed to be rational  It's for emulating manga/anime and the conventions of that idiom.  I hadn't realised that Acrobatics was so highly priced and that may be a boo-boo - would you use it for climbing, jumping, etc. or is there a separate Athletics skill? I can't remember

Quote from: SpikeI don't think anyone would be comfortable when becoming the worlds greatest baskeweaver (six ranks in a cost one skill) is roughly the same as having studied a bit of gymnastics as a child (one level in a cost six skill).

Really? I'm utterly comfortable with this and it's one the things about BESM that I think is genius.  It means you can take skills to round out your character without gimping them.  The martial arts expert who's also brilliant at an artistic skill like calligraphy is one of the conventions of the idiom.  In most systems to have a character as good at martial arts as they are at the fine arts costs a fortune.  No-one does it unless they are a hard-core roleplayer.  In BESM it's actually encouraged

Quote from: SpikeThe interesting thing to me is that it specifically keeps you from porting characters around in 'genres'. Consider that a character from a gritty urban drama has to pay 8 pts to be marginally capable with a gun, but for those same 8 points can be one hell of a car driver, as the GM/Designer figured car driving wasn't going to be a huge factor in the game. That same character finds himself in a blasted wasteland, sort of Road Warrior/Car Wars setting... maybe just outside the city, maybe via the magic of dimension hopping, and suddenly, he's the best driver around because driving costs THOSE characters 8 points a level, while their gun skill only costs them, say, five.

The Genre is for the game/campaign, not the character.  You wouldn't get characters created using different skills costs around the same table.  I'm certain that the rules make this explicit

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonThe Genre is for the game/campaign, not the character.  You wouldn't get characters created using different skills costs around the same table.  I'm certain that the rules make this explicit

You obviously have not gamed with the sort of people I've gamed with. Bringing in established characters from different games and genre's was a way of life at one time for Pick Up games.  Further, having expanded my gaming with Rifts, where a multiversal 'anything goes', and GURPS, where everything is compatable, and balance is a matter of points...

When a bunch of players pull out a bunch of different books to create characters for a random game, the only question the GM has to answer should be 'what power level'.  Because people play like that. A lot of the time.  And to be honest, in the earliest edition of BeSM you could do that (though with only one book...).

Also,  I don't know the cost in the second edition BeSM book. I stated in the OP I was using the Silver Age Sentinels book because it was handy. Just to keep us from arguing from two seperate sources.



Now to address the point you made: You think it works, it's a good idea.  I'll argue with you that the GoO system doesn't work, but I'll conceed that you might have a point. Like I said, I can see the rational behind it.  One that you so eloquently laid out.  But a clear rational does not necessarily equal brilliant design.  

Would you care to elaborate on your opinion in the matter?  Lets leave the GoO system itself out of it. I merely used it as the only pure example of this philosophy I could find.

Something I missed from the OP

QuoteNow, one rank represents a minimal level of training, and in...say.. Silver age Sentinals combat skills average a cost per level of 8. You start with a whopping 30 points. We see a serious difficulty in scaling this. Very nearly one third your life has been spent learning the basics of shooting a gun.

All characters start with 30 skill points.  This basically represents someone who hasn't really taken any formal training beyond high school.  The "Highly Skilled" attribute is cheap for a reason

Quote from: SpikeYou obviously have not gamed with the sort of people I've gamed with. Bringing in established characters from different games and genre's was a way of life at one time for Pick Up games.  Further, having expanded my gaming with Rifts, where a multiversal 'anything goes', and GURPS, where everything is compatable, and balance is a matter of points...

Well BESM does that - heck it's one of the design goals.  However, the skill costs will depend on what the campaign is about (it's "genre" if you like), not about what genre an individual character is from.  I think we got confused about the use of the word "genre"

Quote from: SpikeNow to address the point you made: You think it works, it's a good idea.  I'll argue with you that the GoO system doesn't work, but I'll conceed that you might have a point. Like I said, I can see the rational behind it.  One that you so eloquently laid out.  But a clear rational does not necessarily equal brilliant design.  

Would you care to elaborate on your opinion in the matter?  Lets leave the GoO system itself out of it. I merely used it as the only pure example of this philosophy I could find.

IIRC Palladium had "Secondary Skills" used to round out a character that wouldn't have much use in most campaigns - things like "Cooking" or "Marxism/Leninism/Maoism".  Didn't most OOC's give you some of them for free?  Similar idea

I don't think it would work in every game system, but for cinematic you could have your Mulder analogue being an Elvis-fanatic or your gangster have a secret passion for interior design without having to spend a huge number of points on it

I am aware of the Highly Skilled thing.  I left it out deliberately, so not to get caught up in the merits and failings of a single game line when I was specifically wanting to look at the value of the philosophy driving it.   You are right, of course, that you can get upwards of a hundred skill points by being highly trained.  This leads to debates about the relative merits of taking a skill with your highly trained points, or using those points to buy a  power/advantage that accomplishes the same thing.


Paladium's secondary skills weren't specific skills so much as additional skill picks that represented hobbies and interests. Cooking or Maoist philosphy could be a core class skill, an optional class skill or a secondary skill depending on the class and the player's choices.  In some cases there might not be any difference in the character sheet/use of the skill at all!  Paladium, at least as skills systems go, is an interesting contrast in that the skill level is largely fixed regardless of character type or game setting and appears to be based entirely off of how K.S. viewed how hard the skill was to master.


I certainly agree that having pure color intrests being phenomenally cheap or even free is a valid design design. One difficulty with GURPS lies in trying to make a rounded character who is competent in things outside his specialty. The guy that happens to like cooking is... or certainly can be, less competent than his buddy at whatever his specialty is (like, SWAT cop or whatever...) as those points in cooking, especially at low levels, take away from points in valuable 'class' skills.  

Getting back to the philosophy and it's validity, however:

It seems to me that one common issue will be that the designer must perforce attempt to predict the game play.  If driving is an 'unimportant' and thus cheap skill, it presupposes, possibly inaccurately, that the game master doesn't like car chases.  The GM can increase the cost himself, but risk alienating the players who like having stuff right out of the book from time to time.
If the designer attempts to predict the GM who loves car chases, and boosts the cost of driving, you'll get games where no one knows how to drive because it is too expensive... breaking at least MY suspension of disbelief, and potentially ruining a cool idea for the GM who suddenly decides that a car chase would be cool in his game, then realizes that at 8 pts a level, none of his characters or NPC's can afford a license for that one night's gaming.

In other words, it tends to put the designer into the role of GM. A lot of folks have a problem with that.

Am I wrong?

Quote from: SpikeGetting back to the philosophy and it's validity, however:

It seems to me that one common issue will be that the designer must perforce attempt to predict the game play.  If driving is an 'unimportant' and thus cheap skill, it presupposes, possibly inaccurately, that the game master doesn't like car chases.  The GM can increase the cost himself, but risk alienating the players who like having stuff right out of the book from time to time.
If the designer attempts to predict the GM who loves car chases, and boosts the cost of driving, you'll get games where no one knows how to drive because it is too expensive... breaking at least MY suspension of disbelief, and potentially ruining a cool idea for the GM who suddenly decides that a car chase would be cool in his game, then realizes that at 8 pts a level, none of his characters or NPC's can afford a license for that one night's gaming.

In other words, it tends to put the designer into the role of GM. A lot of folks have a problem with that.

Am I wrong?

Woa!  Hold on, there.  I don't think anyone is saying that you lessen the cost of car driving just because the game has few opportunities to drive cars (at least, I'm not.)  What I'm saying is that a skill should be cheaper if it is less useful in winning conflicts, assuming that all skills have about the same availability for use.  That is, when I design a skill, I don't consider how likely it is that a character is going to use it.  For example, if I were to add "Light Sabre" to Legendary Quest, it would be fairly simple.  The weapon would be awesome to behold in combat, so the cost would be very, very high.  A Light Sabre certainly doesn't fit the mythological fantasy genre of Legendary Quest, and anyone so absurdly lucky enough to find one wouldn't be able to use it for long (assuming it runs on batteries of some sort).  But, the utility of a Light Sabre in winning battles would obviously be immense.  So, the cost would be correspondingly high.

Does that make sense?

It does, but you are basing your cost on both awesomeness AND difficulty to learn. The sort of Hybrid design I've mentioned earlier with a much more even handed praise.

GoO, on the other hand, states flat out that utility in the game is the deciding factor in the cost of a skill.  In a game where car driving is unimportant, car driving is cheap, in a game where it is central, it is the most expensive skill out there.  Presumably in a My Little Pony RPG, combat skills would be hobbies, and rather silly to study, and in that Genre would be very cheap.

That and ONLY that is listed.  The relative rarity or difficulty of your 'color' skills is unimportant. Checkers is the same cost as Anthropology with a specialty in left footed headhunter tribes of antarctica.

Quote from: SpikeIt seems to me that one common issue will be that the designer must perforce attempt to predict the game play.

Well yes.  Unless you're trying to write a generic games system, the games system should support the intended setting for the game.  You wouldn't want UA's Madness Meters in a My Little Pony game either (though that gives me an idea...)

Point-by systems tend to encourage squeezing every last benefit out of your points (I think most of us will remember creating oWoD characters with exactly 7 points of Disadvantages).  The temptation to min-max is tremendous and that means not taking skills that don't have any utility *unless* they're cheap

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonWell yes.  Unless you're trying to write a generic games system, the games system should support the intended setting for the game.  You wouldn't want UA's Madness Meters in a My Little Pony game either (though that gives me an idea...)

Point-by systems tend to encourage squeezing every last benefit out of your points (I think most of us will remember creating oWoD characters with exactly 7 points of Disadvantages).  The temptation to min-max is tremendous and that means not taking skills that don't have any utility *unless* they're cheap

I agree.  Essentially, it is fair to criticize a game system designed to support multiple genres when it is discovered that the skills are not interchangeable between genres.  However, it is not fair to criticize a game system because it is not designed to support skills from other entirely different games.

For example, if you take the D&D feat of "Great Cleave" and graft it into a RoleMaster game, it is unfair to then complain that result is too overpowering.

Similarly, if you were to run a "My Little Ponies" campaign using d20, WoD, LQ, or RoleMaster rules, then your campaign better involve cute princesses riding down other cute princesses on their cuddly pink little ponies and bludgeoning each other to death.  Those are the kinds of conflicts that these games are designed to model.

In other words, game systems don't model genres so much as they model specific kinds of conflicts.  The skills of these systems are necessarily geared toward supporting these kinds of conflicts.