Crappy title, but I'm tired.

Ok, by capturing I mean in terms of portraying them mechanically in a game, I don't mean with nets and shock batons.

Also, this issue arises in most periods and genres, but for the sake of keeping things focussed I want to look just at modern day characters.

Now, people in real life have many skills, often without much logic behind them.  I am an experienced lawyer, have a good knowledge of gaming, can ski fairly well and am a trained rescue diver, I can't drive but I can swim fairly well, I have a good knowledge of history, of modern literature, film, a wide knowledge of a great many genres of music, generally I'm just pretty good on the arts though at a layman level rather than professional.  I speak conversational Italian, I'm reasonably ok with computers, have very good social skills, am generally good at picking up people's moods, am good with animals, there's other stuff.

And that's a fair whack of traits, and I imagine pretty much everyone reading this has a similar grab bag of skills, abilities and traits many of which have little rationale in terms of a cohesive concept.  We don't have cohesive concepts, we're real people.

Most systems struggle to model this accurately without complexity, Gurps can do it, but you end up with masses of skills on your sheet which is a bore, Hero likewise, traditionally the fix for this if you want to capture it lies in complexity.

Other games go for the trait based approach, Lawyer 4, Gamer 3, interested in the arts 3 or something like that, but with those systems if I tried arguing my character was a fairly good diver or skiier but otherwise had no interest in sport and was generally uncoordinated and out of shape I'd be told that my concept didn't support those skills.

So, do you bother addressing this?  Do you embrace complexity?  Do you take characters that make sense, but lack the breadth real people so often have?  Are there any systems that can capture real people well, without being complex at the same time?

I go for the complexity of many skills.  Yes it can be a lot for the average person, but many of those skills have very limited use (if any use at all) in most scenerios.

The COC skills system can do this well and GURPS (like you said).  But let's face it, if we were to try to do up a real person in most systems, they would have many more skills than most of the game systems suggest.  The best system I ever found for modeling contemporary (and I am being very broad in use of that term) characters was the main game creation system in the 1st edition of Time Lords by BTRC where they give a fairly reasonable system to model yourself as a character (and that's what the main game for Time Lords was, playing yourself).  By using that system my old gaming group was given some reasonable examples of what other people might be able to do.

And yes, many real people have skills that lay well outside their "character concept."

Quote from: BalbinusSo, do you bother addressing this?

Yeah. IME the more time one has to spend creating a realistic modern day character with game mechanics the more unrealistic they seem. For my present day political action thriller I'm using Over the Edge which seems to work pretty well. Three traits, one flaw and you're good to go.

QuoteDo you embrace complexity?

Yeah, but here's the thing, I think the complexity of modern day characters comes about by the situations they find themselves in. I'm not really articulating this point well. I'll try again later.

QuoteDo you take characters that make sense, but lack the breadth real people so often have?  Are there any systems that can capture real people well, without being complex at the same time?

Yeah this is an issue with me for modern day characters. A lot of stuff which rules answer or try to nswer should be left unsaid - if you know what I mean. I think OtE does this well.

Sometimes when it comes do modern day characters I have to make a lot of on the spot decisions when players rightly point out that their characters would have this specific skill or talent or trait or whatever. This may not necessarily be campaign related - beneficial - but rather that when creating realistic characters you can't account for everything.

Regards,
David R

Interesting, the best results I got were with OtE too, we had a retired police chief from Manchester, a US presidential adviser, a capoeira instructor who was also a motorcycle enthusiast and a club DJ.

They felt like real people, much more so actually than in most games I've run.

I think the modern set of skills is a bit of an illusion, though. That doesn't make a lot of sense, so I'll explain.

Balbinus, you listed an impressive array of skills you possess. Each individual probably would boast an equally impressive array (if not in importance or magnitude, at least in number of skills). OTOH, I've always kind of assumed RPG characters came with a significant amount of skills packaged with them that were essentially latent or unlisted skills.

For example, the favorite example; Driving. In every modern-era RPG I've seen, Drive is a skill, and most people are assumed to have a default ability to maneuver a vehicle at least clumsily (but legally). These people don't really have any points in the Drive skill, though. Most books also indicate that even without investing points in this type of skill, you can use it. Points invested simply indicate that the character is specially trained or more experienced. The same with Ride in most fantasy games.

Let's look at your skill list again, then. You're pretty good with animals, and have good people skills. A good portion of this looks like you've just got maybe a few points invested, but have a good (Social) stat. You might be able to teach a pet to sit, but could you tame a horse?

You might be able to operate a computer. I'd suggest having a greater knowledge of computers then (Magic Box that has Microsoft Word) indicates you've probably invested experience in that skill. That seems to indicate that computer usage is a discreet skill. Ok, well, now we're getting somewhere.

Generally, I look at it like this. We need thousands of tiny skills to get from day to day. We need to find transportation, tie our shoes, send email, and earn a living. IMO, this is the kind of thing that doesn't require any particular skill use.  We are almost always able to entertain ourselves some way. We read, watch movies, play games, swim, boat, and jump off of tall things. Most of these things only indicate rudimentary skill unless we really invest energy persuing them, and for the most part, don't eat up any kind of skill. (I watch plenty of movies, and am familiar with lots of pop culture, but I certainly wouldn't suggest I have point in movie trivia, for instance.)

Those are all just some examples. My point being, we've got lots of little skills, but most of these don't indicate that we've bought the Skill. Likewise, GMs who say you can't do it at all if you've not got it on your sheet are just asking for trouble.

Amusingly, I take the same stance with fantasy and non-modern games. For example, even if your D&D character doesn't have Survival, I'm not going to make him roll to start a fire for the most part. An adventurer would be able to sharpen their weapons, start a fire, survive in a benign environment, tend to (very) basic wounds, get by on a horse when not under duress, ect.

I'm with Thanatos02 on this. There's a factor to be taken into account: in these days, it's very easy to learn about almost anything. There are libraries, internet, courses for any skill you could think of, schools, universities... any character could have almost any skill without being 'unrealistic.'

In my first games of Vampire, we found what we called the "Jorge's parents syndrome." This consisted in creating characters from any non-military or non - law enforcement background with very high Firearms or Weaponry skills. When called on this the player would always answer:

Quote from: Some player of mineLook at Jorge's parents. Both are doctors. And both are olympic shooters, go hunting and have a big array of weapons at home. Jorge's father is also a black belt in karate and judo. And he's a surgeon. So, if my lawyer PC has a Firearms of 4, as long as he has the skills he needs for his work, is not unrealistic!

And they were right. And that is the reason why sistems like OtE work so good. You can decide on the fly that of course that PC can do that thing. It is not that you cannot do that with CoC or any other system, mind you. It's just that the system makes it easy.

Generally speaking, I find systems with a complexity like BRP's at maximum, the best to do this. Systems more complex, with more skills end seeming more and more stupid, as David R said.

Quote from: BalbinusSo, do you bother addressing this?  Do you embrace complexity?  Do you take characters that make sense, but lack the breadth real people so often have?  Are there any systems that can capture real people well, without being complex at the same time?

I think it can be easily done. When people make characters in point-buy systems, they pick and choose to maximise and optimise with a certain goal in mind - lesbianstripperninja, etc. But real people aren't maximised and optimise, real people have lives.

So you need to treat the point-buy systems as lifepath systems. Say you've some system like GURPS, just say, "Okay, you have your character's background or upbringing, their education, their profession, and their hobbies. For each of those four stages, choose one advantage you gained, one disadvantage, and four skills. And tell me the story of each stage."

You'll get more broad-based characters, then. More a jumbled mess of only half-useful traits, like real people

Quote from: JimBobOzSo you need to treat the point-buy systems as lifepath systems. Say you've some system like GURPS, just say, "Okay, you have your character's background or upbringing, their education, their profession, and their hobbies. For each of those four stages, choose one advantage you gained, one disadvantage, and four skills. And tell me the story of each stage."

That's a fun and applicable task, I think, considering that as soon as I read that I applied it to myself. And when I did, the results I got are very inline with how I'd begin to come up with a character.

Speaking of Jorge's Parents Syndrome, it makes a lot of sense. I found the same stuff happen in my modern (and even fantasy/scifi) games too. And, when I thought about it, it really isn't all that unrealistic. I mean, ok, most people won't have picked up extensive (4 dot) combat skills, but they'll likely have some knowledge they could use, even if it seems unlikely. For example, I was a Boy Scout, and one of my favorite activities was rifle shooting, just because it turned out that I was a naturally accurate shot. I could hit a bullseye section, 4 out of 5, on my first day.

Probably couldn't do it when I was pressed, or under combat conditions, but that justifies at least a low-level attack bonus, or could fall under a skill in a game that wants some at least amature level combat. I've also brawled, wrestled, and taken martial arts. I'm not a bad ass, compared to a military professional or cop, but I can throw a punch. Most people can justify similar combat skill for their characters if they need to. I mean, my character concept is 'broke English major', so...

Well, what I did with Galaxies in Shadow is linked it to the default system.  For every skill that's found in your culture you have a base rating of half its base attribute.  (In some very difficult cases you've got a base skill instead, so nuclear physics winds up defaulting to 1/4 of your Logic score instead of 1/2).

If you want more you have to buy it, but the core assumption of the default system is a broad based cultural experience.

Edit - Wasn't adding anything.

I'm very happy using Amber Diceless style conversations to work out the details.

Initialy, oddball skills are undefined. Players may have a concept but they don't need to write it down.

When the skill enters play, the players decide how well aquainted they are and role play their skills into existence:

                    WEDGE
          That's impossible, even for a
          computer.

                    LUKE
          It's not impossible.  I used to
          bullseye womp rats in my T-sixteen
          back home.  They're not much bigger
          than two meters.

As long as the GM doesn't police it, players are pretty fair about it.

Quote from: BalbinusNow, people in real life have many skills, often without much logic behind them.

So, do you bother addressing this?  Do you embrace complexity?  Do you take characters that make sense, but lack the breadth real people so often have?  Are there any systems that can capture real people well, without being complex at the same time?

I embrace complexity -- but the effort you took to write up your post doesn't strike me as being that complex.

The list here (your list, edited into bullet-point form) looks a lot like a character I'd play in GURPS or Hero:

Quote from: Balbinus

• Experienced lawyer
• Reasonably ok with computers


• Good knowledge of gaming
• Ski fairly well
• Trained rescue diver
• Can swim fairly well
• Can't drive


• Have a good knowledge of history, of modern literature, film, a wide knowledge of a great many genres of music, generally I'm just pretty good on the arts though at a layman level rather than professional.  
• I speak conversational Italian
• Very good social skills, am generally good at picking up people's moods,
• Am good with animals

You didn't talk about physical characteristics, but most of the games I play would do a reasonable job of representing real-life people across a wide spectrum.

I will note that I believe some kind umbrella skill for "Liberal Arts Education" would help reduce number of individual listings for film, music, etc. I can't recall if any of the games I play have something like that, but it's the sort of thing I wouldn't have any trouble house-ruling.

I *like* systems that let me create characters with lots of interests and skills since (as you pointed out), they feel a lot more like real people to me than defining someone in a coarse-grained way does.

Since you were able to sketch yourself out without too much trouble for this post let me ask: is the problem more in attaching numbers / mechanics to each skill or is it really just keeping track of a long list?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Since you were able to sketch yourself out without too much trouble for this post let me ask: is the problem more in attaching numbers / mechanics to each skill or is it really just keeping track of a long list?

Good question.

It's two problems really.  

One, time taken in chargen, the more options the more tedious it often becomes for me.  Plus we have one night a week to play in, I don't want to use up whole sessions in chargen.

Two, keeping track of a long list as you say, I increasingly like character details to be short and sweet.

Quote from: BalbinusGood question.

It's two problems really.  

One, time taken in chargen, the more options the more tedious it often becomes for me.  Plus we have one night a week to play in, I don't want to use up whole sessions in chargen.

Two, keeping track of a long list as you say, I increasingly like character details to be short and sweet.

Then you should either go with an undetailed character modeling system, or stick with a realistic one. You can't have it both ways. The shorter you make that list, the less like reality it's going to be, no matter what system you choose. It's not a matter of system, it's a matter of information granularity. You can't have both.

-clash

Quote from: BalbinusGood question.

It's two problems really.  

One, time taken in chargen, the more options the more tedious it often becomes for me.  Plus we have one night a week to play in, I don't want to use up whole sessions in chargen.

Two, keeping track of a long list as you say, I increasingly like character details to be short and sweet.

I think mice is probably right about the info-granularity issue... capturing the kind of information you laid out in your post in a much-shorter list would be difficult.

Thinking about it, I almost always do char-gen off-line so to speak (i.e. not during the gaming session) and communicate with email to stay synched up with the other players & GM. I wouldn't want to try it during game time, and the systems I like probably wouldn't work for that.

I also rarely optimize characters -- I usually do a list like the one you made and then allocate points based on how good I want the character to be at the various skills. That reduces the effective number of choices I need to make (and makes character-gen less of a shopping exercise since I'm not "browsing" options so much as sketching the character in game terms).

That approach doesn't work for making complex characters (usually guys who are good at combat) since most systems require more thought, but I find it works pretty well for making regular dudes in modern-day.

One final thought: I was playing in a game the other night where I was looking at the other players characters. I found the skill lists were pretty effective in helping me understand who they were and what they did. I'm not one to read even a few paragraphs of "character background" but the bulleted-list effect from a skills sheet was an effective and efficient way to give me a good overview of who I was playing beside.

Less detail -- a granularity that only captured the main aspects -- might not have captured the richness of what the other players intended.

Cheers,
-E.