Quote from: Skarg;1026723Hmm, how do they irritate you, and how would you want the skills to work?

This could be a topic by itself.  An abbreviated, incomplete version:

A. I don't care for point systems that use half points or otherwise have artifacts from an initial design that sets the scope of a 1-point ability too low.  Furthermore, I find that such system often have intractable balance issues distinguishing between 1 and 2 point abilities, and often have kludges built up around the system that makes it more complicated than it needs to be.  However, to fix it would require completely overhauling the point assignment system, which would affect not only skills but the whole game.  I understand why they don't do such a thing to satisfy the handful of people like me that are irritated by it, but I can't stop seeing the issue.  (In passing, I propose that the floor of a well-design point system should be a 3-point ability, and possibly even a 5--if you wanted to allow for 3 and 4 point abilities that you missed later.)

B. On the upper end, the geometric progression of the skills, combined with what a higher-end skill is, means that the zero-to-hero thing is largely neutered.  Since the system was design in part with such a goal in mind, I could hardly quibble about it, but it does make it more difficult to modify for my purposes.  In a sense, I'm in the same boat as someone that tries to twist D&D into too much realism.

Those traits won't stop me from enjoying a game of GURPs run by someone else.  After all, if I'm signing up for that, it is probably a game set firmly at a power level where GURPs excels, and other than my starting character or maybe a character at the end of a long-running campaign, I don't have to deal with those outer limits at all.  If I'm trying to GM it, though, I can't ignore it as much.  It's kind of like a suit and shirt and tie that used to fit perfectly, and then you gained 5 pounds.  It's still wearable, and you look fine, but you aren't quite comfortable anymore.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026737This could be a topic by itself.  An abbreviated, incomplete version:

A. I don't care for point systems that use half points or otherwise have artifacts from an initial design that sets the scope of a 1-point ability too low.

I am not following you.

First 4th edition GURPS has no 1/2 pt level anymore. But in regards to the point I am going to make it matter little.

GURPS uses 3D6 roll low. The basically idea to succeed on a skill roll you roll equal to or lower than the attribute that controls the skill. This is with modifiers. The average human attribute is 10.

Each skill lists a default modifier if used without any skill point applied to it. For example Broadsword is DX-5. Somebody without any skill in Broadsword will have 4.6% chance of succeeding. If it was d20 being rolled they would have to roll a nat 20 to hit with it.

If they put a point into a skill the default modifier is figured on whether a skill is considered Easy, Average, Hard, or Very Hard. Easy it starts at +0 (equal to the attribute), Average -1, Hard, -2, and Very Hard -3.

To get +1 to this you need to spend 2 pts, to get another +1 you need to spend 4 pts. Each additional +1 is 4 points after that.

Broadsword is considered an average skill. So putting one point into will raise it from its default of DX-5 to DX-1. Which for a ordinary person with a dexterity of 10 means they need to roll a 9 or less or 37% chance of success.

GURPS 3rd edition with 1/2 points in skill just had a level underneath the starting one I mentioned above. For example 1/2 point in Broadword meant it was DX-2.

I don't see how any of this precludes a zeroes to heroes style campaign especially in relations to Fantasy Hero which I also refereed campaigns for. I run campaigns both in 3rd and 4th edition with low point starting characters. The lowest I ran was 50 point plus 20 points in disadvantages back in the late 80s.

My biggest issue with GURPS in this regard it just has too many skills finely divided. For social interactions you have Acting, Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Performance, Public Speaking, and Savior-Faire. Granted that many of these default off of each other. But still, luckily it not hard to trim down the list and make some of these specialized Techniques off of a basic skill.

Still I do find Fantasy Age (the RPG by Green Ronin) idea of your attribute being a modifier to a 3d6 roll and you add your skill on top of that to beat some target number to be more friendly in play.

Quote from: estar;1026740I am not following you...

I was not aware that GURPs 4th ed. lopped off the upper end of the scale in favor of a flat +1 for 4 points.  My last plays was with 3rd ed.  That is a ... a more drastic change than I was led to believe was the case in GURPs from some early online reviews.

I find that when a scaling system for skills uses a path of something like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ... that it has problems around the edges.  However, those problems are specifically for dealing with a wide range of power levels.  Yes, it doesn't preclude zero to hero, but you have oddball side effects that make managing that scale difficult.  For the resolution mechanics of GURPs and Hero, such a scale is a positive thing, because you don't want a lot of modifiers.  That kind of progression is far better for a more realistic game, because it says, effectively:  "You learn fast early, but about the time you get competent, you must really dedicate yourself to get any better."   Hero has less of this particular issue, because it doesn't scale the same way.  There's still some edge cases, but the heart of it is scaling in 5 point increments of effect (though the power calculation doesn't work as well for fantasy as it does for superheroes).  It's a big part of why I favored Hero (4th) over GURPs (3rd) for the fantasy games I was running.  

I agree with you about too many schools, finely divided.  But I was trying to keep my answer short.  I'm pretty happy with Hero for starting a little higher than low, and not scaling very far, but not so much for more rapid scaling.  The number of points required ups the accounting costs, and around we go again.  I'm not sure I want to go down that rabbit hole, but some of my objection to 1 and 2 points skills is that it encourages that fine division.  

Again, this is not a point against GURPs or Hero.  I think they achieve their design intent very well.  It's in response to the original question, which is why I find they do not efficiently scale in ways that I want.

I probably still wasn't very clear in that last post.  Let's try contrasting something I think does a better job of doing the kind of relative scaling I want, such as a hypothetical point-based system using the Fibonacci sequence for the costs, with the lower end chopped off as problematic.  (It still has problems on the upper end, but you can't have everything.  A log sequence might be even better, but those don't result in convenient math without a lot of judicious rounding.)  Assume points costs for abilities are 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc.  5 points is the standard for an average ability.  3 is for a minor ability.  2 is for a throw-away or something you really want to scale down after balancing (that is, not used very much).  8, 13, and 21 are for increasingly enhanced abilities.  Starting at 34, you have your upper-tier, epic type things.

Since the cost of an ability at level N is the same as an ability from one each of the two levels before it, there are muted pushes towards some specialization and some generalization.  You can get an average ability for 5 points, or you can get a minor and a throw-away, or you pool all of that, sacrifice another minor, and thus have 8 points to pick up something better.  You'll still have those situations where spending 21 points to reach the upper end of normal doesn't look very compelling compared to picking up a bunch of 2, 3, and 5 point abilities, but it's not quite the same as the 1, 2, 4 points versus 32 of the geometric progression.

Given the research into estimation of effort using such points in Agile programming, I suspect the designers during playtest will do a better job of properly assigning abilities, too.  The clear categories, and chopping off the extreme lower end, should result in less skill scope inflation.  

GURPs built on such a framework might or might not be a better game, but I think it would be one that I personally would enjoy running more.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026472D&D 5E does a good job for me in some areas, but I doubt I'd ever run it with the healing system set as is.  I want it a little more deadly than that. Or more specifically, since I could always just throw a lot of over-powered encounters at the party if all I wanted was deadly, I prefer something more like the RC or AD&D effect where characters get worn down.  

5e hit dice less than double effective hp, so they do get worn down. But at least half the time they are going into fight at full hp. I think that is different from BX-BECM but is much the same as AD&D where Clerics are typically spamming Cure Light Wounds.

Quote from: estar;1026453Let me ask folks this, can you run a tabletop roleplaying campaign without a rulebook?

Can do it. Have done it. Don't particularly want to do it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026458My reaction to it is why I do not quite agree with the degree of emphasis you put on the point of running the setting.  I agree it is important.  Based on my understanding of your points, I don't agree that it is as important as you say it is.

Nor to I agree it is that important. You can define the setting and it's logic and select, interpret, and impose rules to suit. Or you can use the rules as part of the definition of the setting and it's logic. Neither method is better, they are just different. Think of it like this...

When making dinner I can choose a recipe, go to the store, buy the right ingredients, come home, and prepare the meal according to the recipe with the ingredients I specifically purchased for that meal. Because that meal is all about that recipe. Or I can see what's in the frig, the cupboards, and the pantry and prepare a meal out of what I have on hand. That meal is about being hungry now or about being thrifty.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1026518I'm in that boat. I think the very concept of 'skills' is somewhat problematic in that there are some things that a novice should have a 0% chance at and an expert only 33%. Other things where it should be 0%/99%, others 70%/90%, and so on. I don't think trying to find a universal emulation for such has been all that successful (without making the game so convoluted it can only marginally be considered a 'simplification' of reality.

I like the Runequest/CoC/BRP skills system. But I certainly agree that it usually needs a lot GM interpretation and setting modifiers to get it to work at all well across multiple situations. And I've yet to see a really good way of simulating the change in difficulty for sneaking based on the number of people sneaking. Intuitively it seems obvious that one person is less likely to be spotted than 10 people, but a rote interpretation of the rules in any system results in some unpalatable outcomes.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026758Let's try contrasting something I think does a better job of doing the kind of relative scaling I want, such as a hypothetical point-based system using the Fibonacci sequence for the costs, with the lower end chopped off as problematic.

Your idea is interesting, but one problem I see in achieving a wide adoption of something like this comes from Fibonacci values being less easy to remember or calculate in my head than the outcome of simple 2^N power sequence. Generally I prefer a fairly simple formula to a required lookup table.

Thanks for going into that, Steven. I've been interested in playing with different systems for skills forever, and it's interesting to see what other people think about them.

I am mainly interested in having detail and consistent simulation of character improvement compared to a game world's population and what it takes to progress from no study to competent to expert to champion, and what that lets characters do. (And as Willie the Duck pointed out, that can get really complex when each of many skills should probably have different progressions even for different uses of the same skill.)

I think I see what you mean about the point costs for low levels of learning skills. I think there is an issue with letting players freely choose to allocate points to skills so they can choose between an expert level in one skill or 8 or 16 skills at beginner-level (especially if that actually ends up being quite competent because say it's based on IQ and they're smart). I don't think free point-buy is a good model for how people learn skills in that case, and so I instead apply GM/player discretion and/or rules/considerations of how people actually gain skills, which I think needs to detach from the point-buy system at some point to model it well. But I do want to be able to have the most detailed/used characters be able to dabble and have some-but-not-much competence in things - I just don't think free point spending models that well, as learning skills is rarely a matter of "do you choose to focus on being an even higher-level expert, or go learn 8 other skills?"

Quote from: Skarg;1026830I am mainly interested in having detail and consistent simulation of character improvement compared to a game world's population and what it takes to progress from no study to competent to expert to champion, and what that lets characters do.

Do you also simulate skill atrophy? If you didn't you wouldn't be unusual, typically game systems don't. Probably because it would require even more more book keeping and because most players dislike having their characters get less skilled as they get more experienced.

Quote from: Bren;1026840Do you also simulate skill atrophy? If you didn't you wouldn't be unusual, typically game systems don't. Probably because it would require even more more book keeping and because most players dislike having their characters get less skilled as they get more experienced.

Part of what is holding me back in my own design is that I'm trying to simulate skill atrophy without suffering the usual problems of annoying the players and too much complexity or handling time. The only approach that I've found that has some promise is roughly:  Learning skills is done in two tiers, temporary and permanent.  Once a skill (level) is "locked in" as permanent, it can't atrophy.  You've mastered that thing.  This is relatively difficult to do, and you can only do it via sustained attention, represented by sustained practice and a limited number of opportunities to lock in over a given amount of time.  Whereas, temporary skills are "easy come, easy go."  You can cram for them if you need to be better at something temporarily.  You tend to pick up a little temporary ability just by walking around and breathing.  Whatever you are actively doing right now tends to get a temporary boost.  If not locked in, these temporary abilities "evaporate" over time.

The typical play experience is supposed to be that you get temporary ability in several things.  Of these, you'll probably pick something to lock in, but can't lock them all before some will evaporate.  Temporary ability is largely governed by experience points, while permanent ability is largely governed by time.  You can directly learn something permanently without gaining temporary ability first (typically through study), but it is not the most efficient way to do it.

Actually, that part of my system works quite well in itself.  It's the bind that it puts on the system for resolution mechanics and other related parts that is dragging.

I tend to use the word scalability differently. Here used as a game having a large dynamic range of PC power, I'd say it's really not that important. There are games that have only a single power level, and never move. There are games that start at one of several power levels, and never move. There are games that start anywhere on a scale and grow with time (D&D is one). All can be good, provided the game handles well within the intended range and it is clear to GM and players what that range is. After all, if the game isn't suitable to the power level you want, there probably is some other game that is.

Scalability is only important when you need to cross a lot of power levels (from peasant to god). And there really aren't a lot of games that can handle this.

Quote from: Bren;1026840Do you also simulate skill atrophy? If you didn't you wouldn't be unusual, typically game systems don't. Probably because it would require even more more book keeping and because most players dislike having their characters get less skilled as they get more experienced.

Yes, I have, but I don't have a very satisfactory system for it, mainly because ideally it'd take into account which skills got used how much for everyone, which would be colossal to track in detail (even considering which skills should be more like bike riding and which should be more forgettable). I make guidelines for what it ought to roughly be like if tracked, and then instead of tracking, try to notice if someone is using a skill they haven't used in a long time (again from memory and/or GM assessment). i.e. fudging but compared to what it ought to be like if it were tracked.

As I said, it's more complicated that most want to deal with. (Though you were one of the few posters I figured would have tinkered with a system of skill atrophy. As a side note, I had not ridden a bike for about 25-30 years. Then my wife wanted us to buy bikes to ride around town. One thing I learned from that was that after long disuse the skill of riding a bike is actually not "like riding a bicycle."

Also when I hear the word scale in reference to an RPG I immediately think of Star Wars D6 which explicitly had 6 different scales (character, speeder, walker, starfighter, capital, and Death Star) with associated mechanical effects for interaction between the different scales.

It's just like falling off a bicycle.  Once you learn how, you never forget.

Quote from: Bren;1026888Also when I hear the word scale in reference to an RPG I immediately think of Star Wars D6 which explicitly had 6 different scales (character, speeder, walker, starfighter, capital, and Death Star) with associated mechanical effects for interaction between the different scales.

Actually, that very scale is what got me to try and 'fix' Palladium's Rifts issue I had with Mega Damage.  When five men with rifles can take down a tank, with one total loss of soldier but utter destruction of said vehicle, my mind broke.