Rule Talk: Skills & Proficiencies

[SterlingBlake]

SterlingBlake, can you help me understand your above with your earlier statement: I never come up with challenges for my players. If you want to help a player train for war, don't you need to provide specific and relevant challenges for them to practice on? If you look at scarik's game, my character is a military commander and his part of the game focuses on domain level considerations. Sort of like the game Pendragon, but in a more fantastic historical setting. scarik and I have done the "wargame simulation" style game in years gone by, but for this one we're focussing on a different aspect of gaming.

I might be overemphasizing it the way I phrased it. I create ongoing situations in the setting whether the players interact with those situations or not. I don't know which, if any of them, they will end up getting involved in or ignore. The point I wanted to make is that I'm not creating encounters and the situations the players intersect with might be taken as a challenge or not. My role as referee is more of a functionary of the game and setting than a presenter of challenges. I actively maintain the setting, but I'm passive with the players. I'm still not sure I'm articulating that well.

[Leitz]

atpollard, aren't gangs sort of like the pirates you talked about in Traveller? That is, if they were any good at what they did, they wouldn't be pirates (or gang members). If the gangs had honestly gamed the events and aftermath, how would behavior have changed?

Not sure if this is drifting too far off topic from “skills and proficiencies”, but when I took training classes to become a Foster Parent we learned something that applies to Gangs and may apply to pirates.

“You may feel tempted to pity theses children or to feel sorry for them, but you need to understand that these children are survivors. Many of the children that you will meet have lived through experiences that would have killed most adults.”

That was my observation of the “children of Sparta” background of most Gang members I knew and may be the background of most pirates.

I'm pretty confident that the Spartan training was geared to learning skills. Having been on both sides of the "foster" situation, foster kids who have survived difficult times often earn scars and learn coping behaviors that incite a downward spiral out of societal norms. Some can be gently brought out of that plunge through loving help and healing, many don't. I've seen kids with Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) that fought any attempts to help. They were conditioned to institutional life, sometimes going from foster care to jail just because they were comfortable in that environment. It truly stinks.

To bring this back on topic, I'm a bit with SterlingBlake on this. If the players and DM want to build a simulation to game conflict events, 2d6 rolls can be better than reading a novel. Not perfect, but one tool of many to better ourselves.

[atpollard]

SterlingBlake, can you help me understand your above with your earlier statement: I never come up with challenges for my players. If you want to help a player train for war, don't you need to provide specific and relevant challenges for them to practice on? If you look at scarik's game, my character is a military commander and his part of the game focuses on domain level considerations. Sort of like the game Pendragon, but in a more fantastic historical setting. scarik and I have done the "wargame simulation" style game in years gone by, but for this one we're focussing on a different aspect of gaming.

I might be overemphasizing it the way I phrased it. I create ongoing situations in the setting whether the players interact with those situations or not. I don't know which, if any of them, they will end up getting involved in or ignore. The point I wanted to make is that I'm not creating encounters and the situations the players intersect with might be taken as a challenge or not. My role as referee is more of a functionary of the game and setting than a presenter of challenges. I actively maintain the setting, but I'm passive with the players. I'm still not sure I'm articulating that well.

At the risk of quoting too obscure a source, Creflo Dollar once said that every sports event had THREE teams. There is the HOME team with loyal fans cheering for them to win. There is the VISITING team with their loyal fans cheering for them to win. There is a team in striped shirts that stands in the middle and moves freely between the other two teams; they are not cheering for either side because they have a higher loyalty - they are loyal to the RULES of the game.

In many ways, the PLAYERS are one team and the MONSTERS are the other team opposing them, but the DM/GM is the REFEREE in the striped shirt that is loyal to the RULES and impartial towards the teams.

[Rex]

SterlingBlake, can you help me understand your above with your earlier statement: I never come up with challenges for my players. If you want to help a player train for war, don't you need to provide specific and relevant challenges for them to practice on? If you look at scarik's game, my character is a military commander and his part of the game focuses on domain level considerations. Sort of like the game Pendragon, but in a more fantastic historical setting. scarik and I have done the "wargame simulation" style game in years gone by, but for this one we're focussing on a different aspect of gaming.

I might be overemphasizing it the way I phrased it. I create ongoing situations in the setting whether the players interact with those situations or not. I don't know which, if any of them, they will end up getting involved in or ignore. The point I wanted to make is that I'm not creating encounters and the situations the players intersect with might be taken as a challenge or not. My role as referee is more of a functionary of the game and setting than a presenter of challenges. I actively maintain the setting, but I'm passive with the players. I'm still not sure I'm articulating that well.

At the risk of quoting too obscure a source, Creflo Dollar once said that every sports event had THREE teams. There is the HOME team with loyal fans cheering for them to win. There is the VISITING team with their loyal fans cheering for them to win. There is a team in striped shirts that stands in the middle and moves freely between the other two teams; they are not cheering for either side because they have a higher loyalty - they are loyal to the RULES of the game.

In many ways, the PLAYERS are one team and the MONSTERS are the other team opposing them, but the DM/GM is the REFEREE in the striped shirt that is loyal to the RULES and impartial towards the teams.

An excellent description. But it only applies when the DM is doing it right.

[SterlingBlake]

At the risk of quoting too obscure a source, Creflo Dollar once said that every sports event had THREE teams. There is the HOME team with loyal fans cheering for them to win. There is the VISITING team with their loyal fans cheering for them to win. There is a team in striped shirts that stands in the middle and moves freely between the other two teams; they are not cheering for either side because they have a higher loyalty - they are loyal to the RULES of the game.

In many ways, the PLAYERS are one team and the MONSTERS are the other team opposing them, but the DM/GM is the REFEREE in the striped shirt that is loyal to the RULES and impartial towards the teams.

Very well said!

[Leitz]

In many ways, the PLAYERS are one team and the MONSTERS are the other team opposing them, but the DM/GM is the REFEREE in the striped shirt that is loyal to the RULES and impartial towards the teams.

That may well be the difference between simulation and story games. The rules are written by people who captured the essence of their intent the best that they could. They try to balance detail and usability, specificity and generalization, and to make the game fun for hundreds, or thousands, of different gaming groups. As a DM I value the time my players and I have put into the game more than the rules. No matter how good the rules are, situations will arise in the game that are not covered in the rules. Nor can the rules always cover the needs of the players; some for adventure, some to forget a loss. Some to laugh for the first time in weeks and others to live through a successful avatar and feel hope that real life denies.

[atpollard]

I have been guilty of all extremes at one time or another. When I first started, I was slavishly faithful to the TSR modules … which if we are honest, lean towards the “killer DM” and “DM vs PLAYER” trope. [Shall we play “Tomb of Horrors”?]. When later editions with all the splat books came out, I was not immune to jumping on the “Monty-Haul” bandwagon where the DM and players retaliated against impossible modules with GOD-LIKE adventurers that obtained Vorpal Swords and Holy Avengers before they reached Mid-Level.

I attempted to express the NEUTRAL DM mentality which I believed SterlingBlake was striving to communicate. While I CAN play like that, I admit that as a “DM” I am quietly cheering for the players, so I am not impartial. However, I have learned the truth of the saying: “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly.” So I have an obligation to create an EPIC world full of EPIC events (even the mundane events), to provide the players fodder for interactions that will create the memorable adventures (even if that adventure is just seeking lodging for the night in a strange town).

There are no wrong answers, however, there is an implied social contract. When players come to my game and do not find what THEY were looking for and expecting, they leave (and rightly so) because that unwritten social contract has been violated. Time is the one finite resource that we all have in EXACTLY the same quantity, so for someone to spend their TIME with you, is a social contract where both parties must be satisfied with the results.

[Leitz]

I have been guilty of all extremes at one time or another. When I first started, I was slavishly faithful to the TSR modules … which if we are honest, lean towards the “killer DM” and “DM vs PLAYER” trope. [Shall we play “Tomb of Horrors”?]. When later editions with all the splat books came out, I was not immune to jumping on the “Monty-Haul” bandwagon where the DM and players retaliated against impossible modules with GOD-LIKE adventurers that obtained Vorpal Swords and Holy Avengers before they reached Mid-Level.

Yeah, those were the days. Over the course of time I've had every decent magic item in the DMG, and several of the artifacts. That's one of the motivations for story gaming; my treasure might be a queen restored to her throne or a damsel no longer distressed.

So I have an obligation to create an EPIC world full of EPIC events (even the mundane events), to provide the players fodder for interactions that will create the memorable adventures (even if that adventure is just seeking lodging for the night in a strange town).

Having spent four years in one of your EPICs, I'm not complaining. I still re-read the game posts from a decade ago.

[Leitz]

I've been thinking about this for a while and this morning something solidified for me. I am of age X, and if this were a standard traveller game I would have Y number of skills. But looking around, I find people my age and older who have significantly fewer skills and younger ones who have many more. There's also the issue of doing the same thing for years, there's no guarantee you'll get better at it. Maybe a little more efficient so you can get your work done and goof off more, but not necessarily any higher skill.

Then I thought of Brescia, Italy. During the late first and much of the second millennia Brescia was known for its armor and weapon making. It wasn't nearly as big as Milan, Venice, Munich, Paris, or London, but it was the place to get your weapons and armor from. My hypothesis is that a few skilled craftsmen wanted to sell better wares so they thought about their work and improved on it. Others came and had to learn to do the same, and then a bunch of apprentices got trained in the new processes. Thinking about what they were doing gave them the skill boost to create better wares, and being in the culture of their peers kept the cycle going. Modern day might point to Silicon Valley for tech workers, or Florence for artists.

It's not about time doing something, but conscious effort to do it better that raises skill.

There's a story about a pottery teacher who gave students two ways to pass the class. Make one really good thing or make quite a few average things. In the story, those who worked on the average things actually got better in the end. This still works with the above, because there are at least two "grades" of improving skill. "First starting out" is when making the large number of average things helps you learn best because there's a lot to the art and process that you don't know. At some point, however, you know those things and have to make a decision: do you continue to do average or do you create something unique to you? In the latter case you move from "Worker" to "Artist", and that can apply to many different endeavors.

I think it applies to players and DMs as well. It's easy to make up a fighter and go into the dungeon for entertainment value. Nothing wrong with that at all. As a player I like entertainment but I really want to build my skills. Maybe I'll play a noble game, or an exploration game, or even a merchant game. The challenge isn't living or dying, but building my craft and telling a good story.


.

[Rex]

In real life age is actually not particularly high on the determination list for how good someone is at a particular skill. Part of the equation, yes, but not the most important. Natural talent, desire to learn, intelligence, hard working or not, drive, physical aptitude, pride in what you do, health, and age all play a role in the equation and it varies from individual to individual and skill to skill. I am sure I missed some other attributes as well.

[SterlingBlake]

I've been thinking about this for a while and this morning something solidified for me. I am of age X, and if this were a standard traveller game I would have Y number of skills. But looking around, I find people my age and older who have significantly fewer skills and younger ones who have many more. There's also the issue of doing the same thing for years, there's no guarantee you'll get better at it. Maybe a little more efficient so you can get your work done and goof off more, but not necessarily any higher skill.

I don't think that Traveller does too bad a job of modeling that variation. Getting a commission or a promotion, gets a character an extra skill roll, but those aren't automatic, so there's variety in the number of skills different characters have within a career. Some careers offer more automatic skills than others, some offer no option for commission and promotions. An army character that serves only one term and earns commission and promotion that term can leave with 6 skill levels spread across as many as 6 different skills or concentrated in just 2 at age 22. A character who serves a single term in the "other" career option ends up with only 2 skill levels at the same age, with, at best, a 17% chance they're both in the same skill. Over longer careers, this tends to equalize more, both because of the automatic skills having a lesser impact by ratio to the rolled skills and by the rolls tending toward the mean, but you still end up with diverse skill level counts for characters of the same age.

[dmw71]

I haven't contributed to this topic since it moved here to the 'RPG theory' forum, but I have been following it.

This may be a bit off-topic, but indulge me.

Lately I've been feeling like my ruleset preference would include a no skills or low skills system.


Yesterday, however, I randomly found myself struggling or wrestling with the following:


A clever player will be far more capable at problem solving than their character whose dump stat is intelligence.
Likewise, a character with a low charisma score can be outplayed by a player with a more outgoing personality.
Etc...



At what point do you need to rein in or oppose limits on players when they're outperforming what their character could reasonably do?

Or, does anything go?

[Leitz]

At what point do you need to rein in or oppose limits on players when they're outperforming what their character could reasonably do?

I tend to let the players contribute as much as possible and then use those contributions as a roll modifier. Remember, for me the game is about the story; dice are helpful contributors but not slave-driving overlords. In my Star Trek/Traveller game, the captain had tactics and helm had pilot skill. More importantly the captain's player had a wealth of Star Trek lore and the pilot's player had a penchant for fun dialog. In this case I let the captain add his tactical skill, the player add his Star Trek knowledge, the pilot used his skill and the player came up with some good writing. Everything went into the roll, and as you might guess they got a good roll. However, it was three enemy ships to their old clunker one ship, so great rolls were needed.

[Leitz]

In real life age is actually not particularly high on the determination list for how good someone is at a particular skill. Part of the equation, yes, but not the most important. Natural talent, desire to learn, intelligence, hard working or not, drive, physical aptitude, pride in what you do, health, and age all play a role in the equation and it varies from individual to individual and skill to skill. I am sure I missed some other attributes as well.

I was thinking of the Morale score, which is snagged from Striker and bludeoned into something quaintly related. It encompasses much of what you mentioned above, and what is not encompassed certainly impacts it.

[SterlingBlake]

A clever player will be far more capable at problem solving than their character whose dump stat is intelligence.
Likewise, a character with a low charisma score can be outplayed by a player with a more outgoing personality.
Etc...



At what point do you need to rein in or oppose limits on players when they're outperforming what their character could reasonably do?

Or, does anything go?

I think anything goes except where the rules have control.

There are no rules in AD&D 1e (my personal model for this discussion) concerning planning (Intelligence) or talking diplomatically (Charisma). There are rules for the number of languages and spells that can be learned (Intelligence), and the number of henchman who can be attracted and their loyalty (Charisma). The rules show us where the lines are. Not to say you couldn't draw additional lines, but if I did, the rules would be quantifiable and unambiguous and my players would know about them before rolling up characters.

[Rex]

In HarnMaster Intelligence is defined for characters as how good their memory is. How clever or smart they are is the same as the player. You can't really play someone smarter then you anyways so it works for me.

[SterlingBlake]

In HarnMaster Intelligence is defined for characters as how good their memory is. How clever or smart they are is the same as the player. You can't really play someone smarter then you anyways so it works for me.

I think AD&D 1e is effectively the same in that regard. The rules for intelligence affect language and spell acquisition, but problem-solving is not addressed by the rules. In this game too, you essentially can't play a character more clever than you are as a player.

[atpollard]

I think AD&D 1e is effectively the same in that regard. The rules for intelligence affect language and spell acquisition, but problem-solving is not addressed by the rules. In this game too, you essentially can't play a character more clever than you are as a player.

Observation is an area where the DM can level (or more accurately "unlevel") the playing field for PLAYERS based upon the attributes of their CHARACTERS.

• A CHARACTER with high INT will "see" things that others will overlook [which is DM narrative].
• A CHARACTER with high WIS will "know" things that others will not know [which is DM narrative].

(these may be reversed depending on the DM/PLAYERS and group understanding of how the attributes function ... Traveller - my RPG of choice - has INT and EDU)

• People will more freely speak to a CHARACTER with high CHA and "tell" them things that they would not share with others [which is DM narrative].

For RULES with secondary skills, PEOPLE are more comfortable around people like themselves ... so the local Blacksmith will give the Knight a respectful "Yes, Sir" ... but might talk of what he saw two weeks ago to the PC pumping the bellows and sharing conversation about Metalworking because they have "blacksmithing skill".
What did the local BAKER hear from one of the housewives that she might share over the Hearth with another "Baker", yet would never tell a PRIEST buying rations at the counter and asking for information about a Demon Cult?

"Every battle is won before it is ever fought" - Sun Tzu

While the RULES govern once swords are drawn and the enemy is engaged, it is the more intangible interactions between Players and DM (Characters and NPCs/World) leading up to that event which often create more of the "story" of the ADVENTURE.

[Leitz]

While the RULES govern once swords are drawn and the enemy is engaged, it is the more intangible interactions between Players and DM (Characters and NPCs/World) leading up to that event which often create more of the "story" of the ADVENTURE.

I can't think of a better way to express that, thank you.