Almost what the tin says, which do you prefer? A game with lots of skills (Rolemaster) or a game with zero skills and backgrounds (Barbarians of Lemuria) instead?
And why?
To me BoL is more elegant and simple, you choose backgrounds and assign a number, said number gives you (or not) a plus on certain rolls that have something to do with the background.
Never played Barbarians of Lemuria so I can't say with 100% certainty but I for one love Rolemaster and games like it (Alternity for example).
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1131796Almost what the tin says, which do you prefer? A game with lots of skills (Rolemaster) or a game with zero skills and backgrounds (Barbarians of Lemuria) instead?
And why?
To me BoL is more elegant and simple, you choose backgrounds and assign a number, said number gives you (or not) a plus on certain rolls that have something to do with the background.
I prefer defined skills. BoL's backgrounds sound just like what 13th Age has and while they look like they should be a really good way define things without a specific skill list, in practice it ends up turning into a mix of "GM May I?" where the players are constantly trying to justify why their background would apply to a situation coupled with the GM having to ride herd because its super-easy to create backgrounds that are so vague they cover nearly everything to the point that they're basically having to design a custom skill list for each background anyway.
Its just less work for everyone to have a predefined skill list that options are chosen from; no time wasted trying to justify why "Tiraelian Cat Burglar" will give you bonuses to trying to bluff because "being able to bluff your way into less secure places so you could then use your acrobatics to reach more difficult places is all part of being a cat burglar in Tiraelia... as is being able to forge your own tools to pick locks and knowledge of crafting certain knockout poisons because sleep darts are totally a thing in Tiraelia... honest."
Now to be fair, I don't like systems with lots of skills either; D&D 3e had way too many skills (and don't get me started on Rifts). I prefer systems with more concise skill lists; the system I wrote uses just a dozen skills; Acrobatics, Arcana, Culture, Deceit, Engineering, Fitness, Insight, Intimidate, Medicine, Nature, Persuade and Stealth.
Neither. I prefer a game with a middle-ground, with a carefully constructed skill list that is focused like a laser on the purpose of the game. Which is why I don't like the handling of skills in most games. Or to be fair, it's less dislike and rather simply finding the designs somewhat lacking. That's not to say that the BoL can't work. It can. In my mind, it replaces skills with something else that is roughly analogous to skills but isn't really skills. Somewhat the way classes in early D&D imply certain skills but aren't skill themselves.
I prefer lots of skills. They give me a tool box. They broaden the scope of the game so you can do more than kill monsters or whatever the game's focus is. And they ensure that the DM cannot say, "you can't do that," to common, everyday things that I want my character to do.
This really depends on the system, what you're trying to portray and how it's done precisely. And basically either approach could work well depending on what you're trying to do or get out of the system.
That being said my preference tends to be skills over backgrounds, because I prefer to have some degree of granularity and having well defined (and at least somewhat balanced) boundaries on what characters can do. While I find "backgrounds as skills" to be an elegant approach and believe they could work better in some games, I also think that they rely too much on GM fiat and it's too likely that some backgrounds will just be better than others in practice. They also kinda pigeonhole characters to being just their background, with no clear line of progression beyond that--unless characters have multiple backgrounds, but that would make them more like general skills (which is a separate issue). But then again maybe that's the point of the game, in which case using backgrounds would help define characters more deeply with their origins.
In regards to skill systems, however, I prefer general skills with detailed specializations over specialized skills or pure general skills. General skills alone lack granularity too much for my tastes, and I like at least having options for specificity. But specialized skills tend to over complicate the system and spread characters thin, forcing them to learn a bunch of different skills covering similar and often interrelated functions that are basically variations of the same thing as completely separate abilities that they must improve independently from each other. And a lot of times those uber-specific skills won't even come up during play 99.9% of the time, and are just for flavor anyway.
But you can simplify all that by defining some common general skills, dealing with the type of stuff that will actually come up during play, such as combat, piloting (if vehicles are a thing), interaction, general knowledge, etc. And then handle everything else as specializations, to still allow some degree of specificity in the game. That way all skills will always be useful when relevant in play, but you can still pick your flavor "skills" without investing massively into them and also define the stuff you're actually good at without leveling up 50 variations of the same skill.
Rolemaster is a strange choice to pick as an example of a skill based game. GURPS is queen (ha) of skill games. Rolemaster's old Character Law books generally discuss how they intended the few skills in the game to not interfere with roleplay. So, they are limited to certain D&D-like (my word choice) activities.
Traveller (skills) 2d6+n
Barbarians of Lemuria (careers) 2d6+n
Just a different way to describe what is the same thing. Lemuria just expresses them using setting elements, which might make it easier for players and refs to decide when to apply the modifier. Might be easier under Traveller expression other times, though. So....
Probably a small number of concrete skills. Though class-based "you can do whatever a Fighter can do" seems to work fine, too.
Depends on the type of game.
Skill based?
Or class and level based?
Class and level: BoL style backgrounds as skills is the way to go.
I find they thematically fit better with the type of genre expectations that class & level based system seem to bring to the paying table.
For skill based it depends on how rules-light the game is.
But no more than 16-20 broad skills, with PC's able to specialize into more specific stuff as needed.
Long Laundry list skill tables tend to devolve into more what your character can't do than what they can IMHO.
Split the difference. A small number of broad skills, with skill points/advancement being a somewhat rare commodity
Quote from: Kuroth;1131843Rolemaster is a strange choice to pick as an example of a skill based game. GURPS is queen (ha) of skill games. Rolemaster's old Character Law books generally discuss how they intended the few skills in the game to not interfere with roleplay. So, they are limited to certain D&D-like (my word choice) activities.
Traveller (skills) 2d6+n
Barbarians of Lemuria (careers) 2d6+n
Just a different way to describe what is the same thing. Lemuria just expresses them using setting elements, which might make it easier for players and refs to decide when to apply the modifier. Might be easier under Traveller expression other times, though. So....
I didn't pick it because it's skill based (It's not unless memory fails me), I picked it because it has YUGE skill lists. While BoL has none.
Yes, two ways to get the same results, which is why I didn't ask which was "better" but which do you prefer.
Quote from: Jaeger;1131926Depends on the type of game.
Skill based?
Or class and level based?
Class and level: BoL style backgrounds as skills is the way to go.
I find they thematically fit better with the type of genre expectations that class & level based system seem to bring to the paying table.
For skill based it depends on how rules-light the game is.
But no more than 16-20 broad skills, with PC's able to specialize into more specific stuff as needed.
Long Laundry list skill tables tend to devolve into more what your character can't do than what they can IMHO.
Class & Level of course, on a skill based system the question is dumb.
Yes, I do find BoL a "better" option for Class & Level games. I also agree on broad skills rather than laundry list of skills.
Quote from: Joey2k;1131940Split the difference. A small number of broad skills, with skill points/advancement being a somewhat rare commodity
That could work too, it might even work for class & level based games.
Is there a rule in Everywhen or one of the BoL system that does a "stretch" thing. Eg. if your Career directly applies get +2, if you're stretching it w/in reason +1? Not perfect but...
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1132276Is there a rule in Everywhen or one of the BoL system that does a "stretch" thing. Eg. if your Career directly applies get +2, if you're stretching it w/in reason +1? Not perfect but...
I don't remember if it's in either book but you as a GM can always change stuff to fit your style.
If it isn't there it should be because it totally makes sense that a sailor would be good at finding north even when in land. Of course not all careers can be stretched to the same extent.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132235I didn't pick it because it's skill based (It's not unless memory fails me), I picked it because it has YUGE skill lists. While BoL has none.
Yes, two ways to get the same results, which is why I didn't ask which was "better" but which do you prefer.
Rolemaster doesn't have large skill lists compared to games where that is their main feature like GURPS. Rolemaster's key feature is its combat tables. You didn't really see that Lemuria really isn't any different than a game with 26 skills (it has 26 career backgrounds), Traveller (1977) has 25 skills. It is a good conceit of Lemuria, but it isn't anything other than that. I like both Traveller and Lemuria well enough.
If you would like an idea for running Lemuria. I find the lifeblood (hit Points) rule, which is just as D&D as it sounds, pretty same old, particularly as the sameness of the background career set-up really becomes apparent.
Something I have done is bring how damage is handled in Savage Worlds (shaken and wound) over to Lemuria. Brought over to Lemuria, it merges really well with the gameplay goals sought by not counting coins, how experience is handled, as well as magic and alchemy of Lemuria. Use Lemuria's mind attribute rather than World's spirit for most shaken checks. Feel free to rename shaken to something else, such as stagger, on the defense, etcetera.