Background skills

[David Blue]

Re: Background skills

 

Re the genre' date=' I'd say, it's that way, it's Shelley's playtest for Regency HERO, to spill the beans a bit, though I don't think I'm betraying any confidentiality there. I just feel like I'm name-dropping, but it answers your question![/quote']Yes it does. In that context, this mechanic should work a treat!

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

This is the system I promised to tell you about?

 

I stillhaven't found the time....

Heh, no worries, I know how that goes, been there (sure I'm there with folks on odd fronts, certainly I haven't done more Unified Framework work), and I don't even have the excuse of offspring!

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

I haven't done more than gloss over all the responses, but based on your description I would be inclined to give the character:

Cost  Skill
----  -----
EM+1  (KS)London: 11-
2     (KS)Seas and Ports of the Eastern Hemisphere: 11-
2     (KS)Indian culture
3     Navigation: 11-
EM    (PS)Naval Captain: 11-

 

...and then maybe a couple of other applicable skills like Trading and Languages. I wouldn't think that 8-15 points are all that prohibitive to a 150-point Heroic character.

The naval skills include many other things at the level of granularity of HERO, and similarly does "Indian culture' include haggling? Does the interest in snuff boxes rate somewhere? And so on, just that sort of thing. I'm being a bit vague, I know, but I just don't feel like taking the time to wade back through the particular character and indicate what I ended up tossing out just to "make room" that by the same token wasn't unbalancing. I think others have attested to trying to get enough background skills in to say that it's a dilemma of substance for a reasonable audience.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

I'll back him up on that.

 

 

 

 

I saw that!

 

[OddHat]

Re: Background skills

 

Savage Worlds has a great skills approach in terms of background skills in that you basically define your background and your INT-type ability dictates your rolls with these, with a +2 for things you would have really been knowledgable about.

 

Now, of course, SW is a far less granular system. But one of the things I hate about cost-balancing characters in HERO is dealing with all the background skills they should have. This is particularly bad in heroic campaigns where points are scarce (and ought to be).

 

What if there were a similar approach in HERO? Define background, all such things are a single INT-based skill (no pluses in this system). Bascially you're not allowed to take preexisting other skills (presumably those are "cost-balanced") and let's say you can't take fields of study beyond, say, 1 or 2, with this approach, or some such thing. But you can take areas, cities, etc..

 

I think we sort of need this in HERO. ESPECIALLY if we want it to be a "heroic fiction" game. For "realism" one can always simply opt out of this rule.

 

Thoughts?

 

I'll often allow Professional Skills and Everyman skills to cover this.

 

As an example, a character I'm working on now drove trucks accross the country before gaining powers. He'll take the appropriate TF, and Profesional Skill: Trucker at 11-. For that PS, I'll let him make basic repairs to trucks and automobiles, use maps correctly, know the basics of trafic laws, know something about US cities and highways; in other words, he'll have a functional 8- in everything that goes into being a truck driver. If the player ever tried to pull something I thought was silly (All truck dirvers know how to build a truck engine from common houshold items!") I'd say no, but I'm happy to let him have as many reasonable applications for his PS as he needs.

 

If he wanted an encyclopedic knowledge of mechanics or US Highways, he'd have to pay for them, but just enough to do his old job? No problem.

 

I feel the same way about Jobs like Doctor, Lawyer, or FBI agent. Buy the PS, and I'm happy to let you have everything related to that PS as an Everyman skill.

 

One more note: I do allow extra time (but not skill levels) to apply to Everyman skills, up to a maximum of 11 or less. I've yet to see a case where this did anything but help move the game along, and if someone else has spent the points to have that 11 or less, well then they'll be 125 times faster than the guy who moved three steps down the time chart to try to get by using his Everyman skill to do the job.

[OddHat]

Re: Background skills

 

The naval skills include many other things at the level of granularity of HERO' date=' and similarly does "Indian culture' include haggling? Does the interest in snuff boxes rate somewhere? And so on, just that sort of thing. I'm being a bit vague, I know, but I just don't feel like taking the time to wade back through the particular character and indicate what I ended up tossing out just to "make room" that by the same token wasn't unbalancing. I think others have attested to trying to get enough background skills in to say that it's a dilemma of substance for a reasonable audience.[/quote']

 

I'd let him slide by with his PS, an 8- in anything that PS implies and that he hasn't spent points for, and his purchase skills in the areas he wants to be good at.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Background skills

 

The naval skills include many other things at the level of granularity of HERO' date=' and similarly does "Indian culture' include haggling? Does the interest in snuff boxes rate somewhere? And so on, just that sort of thing. I'm being a bit vague, I know, but I just don't feel like taking the time to wade back through the particular character and indicate what I ended up tossing out just to "make room" that by the same token wasn't unbalancing. I think others have attested to trying to get enough background skills in to say that it's a dilemma of substance for a reasonable audience.[/quote']

It may just be my style. In my heroic games, Skills can be just as important as combat ability. In some games, depending on the setting, story, and to some degree the players, Skills can be even more important. I don't see it as inappropriate for a heroic character to spend half or more of their points on Skills. That said, I would likely allow the PS and KS I mentioned relating to those things (Naval Captain and Indian Culture) to cover a decently broad range of things.

 

Beyond that, a character has personality on top of his or her stats. He is interested in snuff boxes? Cool. I'll try to work that into the story at some point, and he can roleplay it. If he really wants some definable stat, he could buy another full Skill or Familiarity to reflect this (KS - Snuff Boxes) and use it as Complimentary to rolls such as Trading. Even if he didn't, I might give small situational bonuses that have to do with a character's non-bought background, especially if the player actually wrote a background out (I may be rather unconventional in this, because I will often even reward a small bit of Experience to any player who wants to write out a character background).

 

Otherwise, what Skills do you see as relating to his naval background? Navigation? Climbing? WF - nets? Given the importance I tend to place on Skills in heroic games, I would make the character buy them. If he winds up buying a whole boat-load ( ) of KSs and PSs that are unlikely to ever be utilized in the game (which to me says I am doing something wrong as GM), I might suggest more general ones, or I might decrease their cost (even to the point of being Everyman); after all, I just admitted that by supposition they would have little in-game benefit. I would feel the need to grant such boons to each character, though, so I would not be very inclined to use the last approach. More likely I would restructure my campaign a little so the character's backgroud Skills did play a more critical role.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

I'd let him slide by with his PS' date=' an 8- in anything that PS implies and that he hasn't spent points for, and his purchase skills in the areas he wants to be good at.[/quote']

 

The problem here is that he probably wants to be good at the things that are getting lumped together on an 8-. If the character runs across a situation in which one of these background skills is suddenly important, he's going to want to be able to have a better shot at success than an 8- + whatever he can get for extra time.

 

You can build characters in such a way as to cover skills that will probably be needed. Or, you can build characters with the skills that their background suggests that they should have, whether those skills seem immediately useful or not. The first method saves points. The second method insures that a character will be able to perform as envisioned if the game takes a sudden curve into the area of a character's specialization. If the group suddenly winds up spending three weeks deep in naval battles off the coast of India, Zornwil's character is going to want to have a full complement of skills that supports that aspect of his background.

[OddHat]

Re: Background skills

 

The problem here is that he probably wants to be good at the things that are getting lumped together on an 8-. If the character runs across a situation in which one of these background skills is suddenly important, he's going to want to be able to have a better shot at success than an 8- + whatever he can get for extra time.

 

You can build characters in such a way as to cover skills that will probably be needed. Or, you can build characters with the skills that their background suggests that they should have, whether those skills seem immediately useful or not. The first method saves points. The second method insures that a character will be able to perform as envisioned if the game takes a sudden curve into the area of a character's specialization. If the group suddenly winds up spending three weeks deep in naval battles off the coast of India, Zornwil's character is going to want to have a full complement of skills that supports that aspect of his background.

 

In which case he'll have to spend the points on them, unless Zorn wants to use a different rules set.

 

8- gets the character a better than 40% chance if he takes a normal amount of time with the task in question, and 50% or more if he takes extra time. For something that's not a primary part of the characters design, that seems fair to me. If he needs more, IMO he should spend the points. However, it's Zorn's game; if he wants to use any number of other solutions (allowing Overall Levels to apply to Everyman skills, introducing Universal Professional Skill a the same price as Universal Translator, just raising the campaign point totals or giving background skills for free, etc), that's his call.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

Beyond that' date=' a character has personality on top of his or her stats. He is interested in snuff boxes? Cool. I'll try to work that into the story at some point, and he can roleplay it. If he really wants some definable stat, he [i']could[/i] buy another full Skill or Familiarity to reflect this (KS - Snuff Boxes) and use it as Complimentary to rolls such as Trading. Even if he didn't, I might give small situational bonuses that have to do with a character's non-bought background, especially if the player actually wrote a background out (I may be rather unconventional in this, because I will often even reward a small bit of Experience to any player who wants to write out a character background).

 

That attitude of GM customization is indeed salutory and should be the goal of every GM. But, sometimes the sheer number of players makes it difficult. It is one thing to do this in a game with three players, one of whom has put a lot of effort into background. It is an entirely different thing to look at seven or more players, each of whom has pulled together a meticulously detailed personal history fully deserving of personal attention from the GM. In that case, as a player, I want my skills fully detailed on my character sheet and ready to allude to when the opportunity presents itself. Expecting a GM to be on top of the nuances of all characters in a large group makes the job of GM a bit too big for a casual game, and tends to lead to GM burnout.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

In which case he'll have to spend the points on them, unles Zorn wants to use a different rules set.

 

8- gets the character a better than 40% chance if he takes a normal amount of time with the task in question, and 50% or more if he takes extra time. For something that's not a primary part of the characters design, that seems fair to me. If he needs more, IMO he shoul spend the points. However, it's Zorn's game; if he wants to use any number of other solutions (allowing Overall Levels to apply to Everyman skills, introducing Universal Professional Skill a the same price as Universal Translator, just raising the campaign point totals or giving background skills for free, etc), that's his call.

 

[getting nitpicky - avert eyes if such things are bothersome]

8- is about a 1/4 chance.

The game under discussion is one in which Zornwil is playing, not running, so he can't really change the rules.

[nitpicks done. Sorry, couldn't restrain myself]

[prestidigitator]

Re: Background skills

 

That attitude of GM customization is indeed salutory and should be the goal of every GM. But' date=' sometimes the sheer number of players makes it difficult. It is one thing to do this in a game with three players, one of whom has put a lot of effort into background. It is an entirely different thing to look at seven or more players, each of whom has pulled together a meticulously detailed personal history fully deserving of personal attention from the GM. In that case, as a player, I want my skills fully detailed on my character sheet and ready to allude to when the opportunity presents itself. Expecting a GM to be on top of the nuances of all characters in a large group makes the job of GM a bit too big for a casual game, and tends to lead to GM burnout.[/quote']

I don't think it is uncalled for for the GM to read evey one of those detailed histories, nor do I think it is unreasonable to incorporate some element of one or two characters' background into each gaming session. You aren't going to center your whole story around it, but letting them have their, "moments in the sun," can be enough to make a few Character Points seem more worth it, don't you think? Grabbing all histories and trying to weave every one of them into the story of each session would truly be like juggling a bowlful of M&Ms.

 

So this is something I would do over a multi-session game. For large, short games, you usually have to get either really loose or really rigid anyway. In such a game, it may be unreasonable to expect very many of any character's Skills to be employed, unless the character is specifically built to match your central theme. Then we perhaps come to the crux of the matter: do you reward characters that are built in such a manner as to fit hand-in-glove with the GM's invisioned storyline? Maybe, if the players have enough information to know what concepts will fit in such a fashion and decide to build something else nonetheless.

 

I find that as a player in a large gaming group, I can (or have to) myself put forth the effort to incorporate interesting aspects of my character into the game. It is only partially the GM's responsibility, after all. With creative and involved players, even large groups can be detailed enough for everyone.

 

EDIT: Maybe I can put this more succinctly: if you want your background to have an impact on the game, pay for it, and--with more or less help from the GM--find a way to incorporate it.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

I find that as a player in a large gaming group' date=' I can (or have to) myself put forth the effort to incorporate interesting aspects of my character into the game. It is only partially the GM's responsibility, after all. With creative and involved players, even large groups can be detailed enough for everyone.[/quote']

 

Meandering back on topic...

 

In large groups, a different dynamic tends to take hold. Since the GM doesn't necessarily have enough of a spotlight to keep everyone covered, players tend to pick up the slack by playing out scenes with no GM interaction. This is a total win for everyone at the table - more fun for players, less pressure on the GM, more material for the GM to work with. But, to really make it work, players need solid backgrounds for their characters. The Savage Worlds approach to backgrounds pretty well guarantees that this will be the case.

[OddHat]

Re: Background skills

 

[getting nitpicky - avert eyes if such things are bothersome]

8- is about a 1/4 chance.

The game under discussion is one in which Zornwil is playing, not running, so he can't really change the rules.

[nitpicks done. Sorry, couldn't restrain myself]

 

So, in that case he takes the extra time to get a 9 or 10.

 

As to not being able to change the rules, fair enough. He can still talk over the options with his GM.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

In which case he'll have to spend the points on them, unless Zorn wants to use a different rules set.

 

8- gets the character a better than 40% chance if he takes a normal amount of time with the task in question, and 50% or more if he takes extra time. For something that's not a primary part of the characters design, that seems fair to me. If he needs more, IMO he should spend the points. However, it's Zorn's game; if he wants to use any number of other solutions (allowing Overall Levels to apply to Everyman skills, introducing Universal Professional Skill a the same price as Universal Translator, just raising the campaign point totals or giving background skills for free, etc), that's his call.

The thing is, in a heroic fiction game, unless these are particularly advantageous, the base contention here is that background knowledges are essentially over-priced. Just to cut to the chase of the matter - a rich background is very difficult to handle in HERO with the "regular" rules. I'm not criticizing the ruleset in entirety on the matter as there are some obvious crutches out there (VPPs being a major one, as well as over-generalized KSes that the GM can simply rule are okay to be more granular on occassion).

 

PS - to add another point, this is more to the fore the more larger-than-life the campaign gets, too. I grant that in a purely "realistic" game the existing system is probably nearly perfect, but it takes more work the less granular/realistic and the more "heroic" the campaign gets.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background skills

 

A couple of thoughts: I'm trying to build a base template character at the moment that allows people to start play quickly. I have a 30 point skill pool at present: you just write in the descriptions for the skills:

 

PS: Career 11-

PS: Hobby 11-

2 interaction skills

2 agility skills

2 intellect skills

4 background skills (at 11-)

 

The background skills should generally be related to one or more of the other skills, so if your hobby is wargaming, it is logical to have a KS: Napoleonic History, if one of your interaction skills is seduction it is logical to have KS: chat-up lines. One of the background skills should generally be an AK.

 

This gives a structure to skill building: otherwise I find that some spend 45 points and some spend 5 points and never the twain shall meet. You can always buy more, but this makes players, in my experience, feel they've done their bit skill-wise and gives a reasonably rounded base of skills. Now this is designed primarily for superhero games, but could be applied to other genres easily enough - afterall a higher proportion of points will be spent on skills in a heroic game.

 

If everyone is spending a similar number of points on skills it is less irksome for those character-builders if the GM fluffs or expands the definition of a skill to allow characters to know something about the problem in hand.

 

OK, so that's point one: try and fix it with character build guidelines.

 

That doesn't really address zornwil's problem though. One of the reasons I am not keen on overdoing the skills is that they can be wasted points: you may never visit half the places you have AKs for, and either the player resents having spent the time to flesh out the character OR the GM feels obliged to set at least one scene in Kualar Lumpa. Neither is ideal.

 

Can I suggest this quick and dirty fix (an idea similar to OddHat's in some ways): we already have Power Skill - a skill that lets us do the occasional thing with powers that we hadn't thought we would need to at character creation and is pressed on us by the demands of the scenario. Why can we not also have a Character Skill?

 

Character Skill would be used in much the same way as Power Skill, but would relate to stuff that it is logical fromt eh background and history and general build of the character (including other skills) that the character MIGHT be able to do. It's a kind of catch-all. It shouldn't be overused or an excuse not to buy any other skills, but it would be useful occasionally when you sail into a familiar port...

 

The only other suggestions I can make are things I have mentioned before in the context of superpowers: Setting Points and Point Mortgaging.

 

Setting Points mean that you leave a number of character points undefined and you can define them in-game at any time so long as what you use them for is not inconsistent with the previous use of the character. Once they are defined they are 'set' and can not be re-defined. This could be ideal for the sea-captain: he only needs to spend the points on AK Kualar Lumpa when he actually goes there or needs that knowledge. There should be a strict limit on the sumber of Setting Points a new character can be built with.

 

The other thing is Point Mortgages: allowing characters who logically would have an ability to buy it in-game and pay for it out of any saved XP or as-yet unearned XP (you HAVE TO spend your next 2XP on AK Kualar Lumpa, for example). Like all of these ideas they need to be carefully monitored but should allow far more flexibility that should allow for an enjoyable game.

 

Some people do not like this approach as, it is argued, a character either knows something or doesn't. I like to think of these 'tricks' as a form of sfx for having the knowledge but not accessing it until the situation presents itself; for example I could find my way around Kenilworth in Warwickshire, where I was brought up, but I haven't 'accessed' that knowledge for years. Logically it should be on my character sheet, but really it is never going to be used unless, for some reason, I go back there (and all my family have left so I probably won't). Moreover if I tried to draw a map of Kenilworth now I would have little success, but if I was actually there the mnemonic cues would re-build my knowledge base quickly and accurately: it is like the information is in a .zip folder, and until something happens to unzip it, I know it is there but I can not use it.

 

Anyway, I hope some of that helps.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

Good stuff, Sean, as always.

 

On a tangent re Mortgage Points, I've considered something like that in general, purchase as much as you want, if it's beyond a campaign limit you just don't get XPs (or, at least, a substantial portion per adventure) until the mortgage is paid off. I allow this anyway for small purchases, but thinking it could just be wide open and some PCs are simply more experienced already, basically.

 

But by the time I really have a reason to do this, I'll probably go points-less anyway.

[Markdoc]

Re: Background skills

 

I agree with the comments on "skill roll inflation". Having character skills appropriate to background and genre is key (for me - as a GM I'm a bit of a skills martinet). But in my opinion, most people wildly overestimate what is needed to make a "useful" or "realistic" skill roll. You can see my skills rant here, if you want.

 

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#NewSystemofSkillPricing

 

Basically, if a character wishes to be *good* at a skill then he needs to spend points on it. But for most instances - especially background - an 8- roll is plenty. If the character in question comes from London, then AK: London is part of his (free) everyman skillset - he doesn't need AK: London 11- unless he wants to be a London maven, familiar with its streets and twisty mazy backways. A navy man with a London background would know the docks of the Isle of Dogs, and where to get a sounding man at Greenwich but would he necessarily know the name of the slumlord who owns the rookery behind the docks, or where to find a certain brothel in that area? One hopes not! A Character with a roguish background might know that, as would any local, but would not necessarily know anything about the order of shipping in the roads, or what taxi fare to the village of Hampstead costs. Sounds like 8- to me....

 

Likewise *I* know that haggling is not just the rule in an indian market, but also that one does not haggle in an Indian department store - and I don't kid myself that I have KS:India at any level. KS: Asia at 8- maybe. If you buy a bunch of skills at 8- and perhaps a skill enhancer, 10-12 points can give your character a depth of background skill sufficient for most games, and relatively realistic, whilst at the same time allowing them to develop their particular forté without concern that everyone else has the same or an overlapping skill set.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background skills

 

I agree with the comments on "skill roll inflation". Having character skills appropriate to background and genre is key (for me - as a GM I'm a bit of a skills martinet). But in my opinion, most people wildly overestimate what is needed to make a "useful" or "realistic" skill roll. You can see my skills rant here, if you want.

 

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#NewSystemofSkillPricing

 

Basically, if a character wishes to be *good* at a skill then he needs to spend points on it. But for most instances - especially background - an 8- roll is plenty. If the character in question comes from London, then AK: London is part of his (free) everyman skillset - he doesn't need AK: London 11- unless he wants to be a London maven, familiar with its streets and twisty mazy backways. A navy man with a London background would know the docks of the Isle of Dogs, and where to get a sounding man at Greenwich but would he necessarily know the name of the slumlord who owns the rookery behind the docks, or where to find a certain brothel in that area? One hopes not! A Character with a roguish background might know that, as would any local, but would not necessarily know anything about the order of shipping in the roads, or what taxi fare to the village of Hampstead costs. Sounds like 8- to me....

 

Likewise *I* know that haggling is not just the rule in an indian market, but also that one does not haggle in an Indian department store - and I don't kid myself that I have KS:India at any level. KS: Asia at 8- maybe. If you buy a bunch of skills at 8- and perhaps a skill enhancer, 10-12 points can give your character a depth of background skill sufficient for most games, and relatively realistic, whilst at the same time allowing them to develop their particular forté without concern that everyone else has the same or an overlapping skill set.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Excellent post.

 

Can I just mention my wife's haggling technique? it has confused and counfounded, and in several cases reduced to tears apparently hardened traders in various parts of the world.

 

It seems to consist of...well...not haggling. You go ask them how much they want, snort derisively then offer something very low. OK so far, that's how it goes in most cases. The trader then concedes something and Tammy...well sort of stares at him and repeats her original 'offer'. She'll let this go on for a little while until the trader feels it incumbent upon him to explain how you haggle. She listens carefully, repeats her original offer and then walks away, usually pursued by the poor chap, who has had to leave the immediate environs of his stall, which clearly puts him on the back foot.

 

Nine times out of ten she gets what she wants at the price she originally offered. I wind up squirming with embarassment even though I usually observe from a safe distance, but by golly it works. She, nedless to say, appears completely oblivious to this flouting of technique and tradition.

 

The point, I suppose, of this anecdote it that even a single skill has many manifestations, and two people witht he same skill at the same level will not have the same knowledge and ability: only, on average, similar results.

 

This can make it very difficult for a GM to make decisions fairly about skill use. There isn't an easy solution: the only approach I can suggest is consistency, so that even if skills vary in value between campaigns, withjin a campaign your AK: London Docks at 8- is worth about the same as some scurrilous rogue's KS: London Knocking-Shops at 8-.

[Markdoc]

Re: Background skills

 

Can I just mention my wife's haggling technique? it has confused and counfounded' date=' and in several cases reduced to tears apparently hardened traders in various parts of the world.[/quote']

 

Your wife is lucky. I simply can't haggle, which given the amount of time I spend in places where haggling is the norm puts me at a severe disadvantage...

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background skills

 

Buy it as a superskill in a focus (wife)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....thank goodness she doesn't read these boards....

[OddHat]

Re: Background skills

 

The thing is' date=' in a [b']heroic fiction[/b] game, unless these are particularly advantageous, the base contention here is that background knowledges are essentially over-priced. Just to cut to the chase of the matter - a rich background is very difficult to handle in HERO with the "regular" rules. I'm not criticizing the ruleset in entirety on the matter as there are some obvious crutches out there (VPPs being a major one, as well as over-generalized KSes that the GM can simply rule are okay to be more granular on occassion).

 

PS - to add another point, this is more to the fore the more larger-than-life the campaign gets, too. I grant that in a purely "realistic" game the existing system is probably nearly perfect, but it takes more work the less granular/realistic and the more "heroic" the campaign gets.

 

Good posts from Markdoc and Sean, as always.

 

Zorn, I'm not sure I agree here. Just imo, but I think that the existing rules work well enough to allow a rich background if the GM is willing to let broad PS, KS, and AK trickle down into more specific applications. If you do have PS:Ship's Captain, it's fairly intuitive that you should be able to perform all the basic tasks needed for that skill (navigation, haggling over the price of supplies, management, at least a working knowledge of ship maintenance, etc), at least in that setting. I prefer an "OK, you can do that" approach with trickle down skills, an 8- with logically related items or a penalty to the base skill (-5 per step down would be by-the-book), but other methods work as well.

 

If the problem you're seeing is that characters can't reach larger-than-life levels of competence in heroic games, I'd say that the easiest answer is to give them a nice chunk of AK, PS, and KS for free (or, if the GM prefers, a block of points that can only be spent on such skills). If that means 200 point characters, fair enough; that's the level you'll need for a more cinematic campaign.

[Black Rose]

Re: Background skills

 

For me, the problem is/was that even 1 point per port adds up pretty darn fast, and HERO has no construct for an 8- or 11- or whichever basis for grouping these very well. "Ports of the Indian Ocean" and "Ports of the European North Atlantic" are reasonable enough in one way and I did that, but in HERO such interpretations are rather...unclear as to what granularity can be afforded, and HERO is also very specific about these as AKs, not including things like cultural notions and some incidentals like being in the bazaars of India, dealing with beggars, et. al. All valid stuff for a GM to call and this GM in question is high caliber enough for none of this to truly be a problem in play, but it's a poor limitatin upon reflection, I believe.

 

Regardless, good point about Traveler.

 

Considering an AK: home territory 8- is included in a character's Everyman Skills, and that would be considered acceptable for Joe "I've lived here all my life" Public, I'd say having AK: Ports of the Indian Ocean at 11- would be more than adequate for knowing most basic stuff. If you have a habit of wanting to know very specific details about a port city (alleys to duck down to lose thugs, which beggar can get you in good with an apothecary who will sell poisons, etc), then you want to be more specific in your skill buying.

 

BTJMO,

 

Black Rose

[RDU Neil]

Re: Background skills

 

I agree with the comments on "skill roll inflation". Having character skills appropriate to background and genre is key (for me - as a GM I'm a bit of a skills martinet). But in my opinion, most people wildly overestimate what is needed to make a "useful" or "realistic" skill roll. You can see my skills rant here, if you want.

 

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#NewSystemofSkillPricing

 

Basically, if a character wishes to be *good* at a skill then he needs to spend points on it. But for most instances - especially background - an 8- roll is plenty. If the character in question comes from London, then AK: London is part of his (free) everyman skillset - he doesn't need AK: London 11- unless he wants to be a London maven, familiar with its streets and twisty mazy backways. A navy man with a London background would know the docks of the Isle of Dogs, and where to get a sounding man at Greenwich but would he necessarily know the name of the slumlord who owns the rookery behind the docks, or where to find a certain brothel in that area? One hopes not! A Character with a roguish background might know that, as would any local, but would not necessarily know anything about the order of shipping in the roads, or what taxi fare to the village of Hampstead costs. Sounds like 8- to me....

 

Likewise *I* know that haggling is not just the rule in an indian market, but also that one does not haggle in an Indian department store - and I don't kid myself that I have KS:India at any level. KS: Asia at 8- maybe. If you buy a bunch of skills at 8- and perhaps a skill enhancer, 10-12 points can give your character a depth of background skill sufficient for most games, and relatively realistic, whilst at the same time allowing them to develop their particular forté without concern that everyone else has the same or an overlapping skill set.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I must agree... as he said what I said, only he said it better!

[RDU Neil]

Re: Background skills

 

Good posts from Markdoc and Sean, as always.

 

Zorn, I'm not sure I agree here. Just imo, but I think that the existing rules work well enough to allow a rich background if the GM is willing to let broad PS, KS, and AK trickle down into more specific applications. If you do have PS:Ship's Captain, it's fairly intuitive that you should be able to perform all the basic tasks needed for that skill (navigation, haggling over the price of supplies, management, at least a working knowledge of ship maintenance, etc), at least in that setting. I prefer an "OK, you can do that" approach with trickle down skills, an 8- with logically related items or a penalty to the base skill (-5 per step down would be by-the-book), but other methods work as well.

 

If the problem you're seeing is that characters can't reach larger-than-life levels of competence in heroic games, I'd say that the easiest answer is to give them a nice chunk of AK, PS, and KS for free (or, if the GM prefers, a block of points that can only be spent on such skills). If that means 200 point characters, fair enough; that's the level you'll need for a more cinematic campaign.

 

And another good post! Totally agree, here. As a GM, I prefer to have fewer, more general skills, and allow the trickle down effect... but if a player truly wants an omni-competent skill maven... they spend the points. I've easily built 300 plus point Fantasy Hero characters who were really good in combat, but nothing super-level... they just had a great deal of skils and knowledges and contacts etc., to make them unrealistically competent in many, many areas.

 

Maybe there is a dislike for the general points inflation that Hero has suffered over the years... but at this point, the game has become diverse and granular enough that to have truly "heroic" level chararacters (that feel like fictional heroes) then you are spending almost as many points as you would on Supers... you just don't have the heights of DC or superpowers and such... it goes into skill levels and knowledge and background.