Background skills

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

Zorn' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

That's fine until you pick up the dice and try to make that 8- navigation roll to keep the ship off the rocks. Or until you match your 8- haggling skill against a 12- haggling skill.

 

Skill inflation happens because some character concepts shouldn't miss certain skill rolls. If you have the skill on an 8-, most GMs are going to expect you to roll an 8- to use it. You can hem and haw about extra time, but sometimes you don't have extra time, and sometimes what the player thinks is "extra" time is the amount of time the GM considers to be "base" time.

 

My take on what the numbers mean goes ike this:

 

8- is a non-serious hobby. A class taken in the area (as per the "Cramming" skill). A supporting skill that the character has some measure of familiarity with.

 

11- is good enough to make a living.

 

14- is expert

 

above 14- allows the character to be an expert under increasingly adverse circumstances.

 

These are the benchmarks I look at when deciding what level skills should be placed at.

 

If you are trying to reflect characters from fiction, 14- is pretty much the standard. It is high enough to expect that you will make rolls when needed if there are no negative modifiers. Most fictional characters tend to be "expert" at the things they are expected to do - that's what gives them the inclination to be involved in the sorts of stories most GMs want to tell. No one wants to be on a ship helmed by a captain who expects to make it through the tricky schoals during a storm with an 8- navigation skill. No player wants to be the captain who has to tell the crew that he isn't up to the task, so they will need to spend a few days so he can take extra time on the roll. That just isn't consistent with the genre examples most GMs are looking to follow.

 

Languages are completely broken. Who wants to spend 20 points on langauges on the off chance they will actually need German during a story? My character in Zornwil's game is Chinese - he is fluent in Mandarin (4 points). Over the course of nearly fifty sessions, this has never been a factor. Even when the group has been to China, the rest of the gang had ways of dealing with the language barrier that worked just as well as 4 points of the appropriate langauage. Otherwise, the adventure would have tilted too far in the direction of my character and the rst of the players would have spent hours just standing around. So, what is the real point of the expenditure? I spent the points because it matched the background I had in mind, but taking +2 to an attack would have been about 30x as useful. (I don't fault Zornwil here - I don't think there would have been any other way to run the advanture in a way that was interesting to the whole group. I only bring this up because his is the only game I've put that many sessions into.) By Oddhat's example, it would seem that 2 points of "PS: Chinese Culture" could have covered this. I just don't see any GM looking at my background and character sheet and not saying "Isn't Mandarin your native language? Why isn't it on your sheet?"

 

Another example. My character in the game Zornwil is using to illustrate his point is a French dandy. He has both KS: Fashion and PS: Fashion. This allows him to discuss fashion and to dress himself well. Should overlapping KS, PS, and SS be eliminated? I assigned those points to let the GM know that I am serious about those aspects of the character, and that he should be viewed as a character who is something of an expert in these matters. In practice, these skills aren't going to save lives or go very far to advance a plot (except under fairly limited circumstances). On the other hand, they make the character more fun to play - there's no doubting the exact level of his fashion expertise, and the GM is more than happy to play along with this. Without the points, I strongly expect the effect would be far different. In effect, what I'm saying here is that spending points is also a way for a player to let the GM know that a certain aspect of a character is important.

 

The bottom line is that, after more than 20 years of this, playing with some really excellent players and GMs, I just don't think that a player can expect for the various point of his background to be useful, or to be taken seriously unless the player sinks enough points in them to properly impress the point on the GM (who is busy coordinating a lot of players, backgrounds, and skills, as well as running an fairly complex story) Some GMs say they can do this, but, quite frankly, I simply do not believe it.

[OddHat]

Re: Background skills

 

That's fine until you pick up the dice and try to make that 8- navigation roll to keep the ship off the rocks. Or until you match your 8- haggling skill against a 12- haggling skill.

 

-SNIP-

 

The bottom line is that, after more than 20 years of this, playing with some really excellent players and GMs, I just don't think that a player can expect for the various point of his background to be useful, or to be taken seriously unless the player sinks enough points in them to properly impress the point on the GM (who is busy coordinating a lot of players, backgrounds, and skills, as well as running an fairly complex story) Some GMs say they can do this, but, quite frankly, I simply do not believe it.

 

I've been doing this more than 20 years myself, playing with some great groups, and I respect your experience. Still, it differs from my own.

 

I don't require the navigating captain to make an 8 or less roll to keep off of the rocks in normal circumstances, though I might in a serious storm; If he's expecting storms, he should hire a navigator, or buy the skill. As to haggling, the supplier will likely have an 11 or less, and our captain who has not bothered to buy his own haggling skill up will get a poor deal. If the player wanted to be an expert haggler, as oppossed to just able to get by, he should have spent the points. I don't see this as a problem, unless the GM and the players have different expectations about the level of competence characters will have for free.

 

As to what skills mean (and I am aware that this is a debated ubject), I see it as:

8- = Everyday tasks and basic skill use do not require rolls, more complex tasks do.

 

11- = Profesional level of competence. You don't need to roll for everyday tasks or even moderately difficult tasks, but you do need to roll to do something exceptionally tricky or to finish a task exceptionally quickly.

 

14- = Expert.

 

As to impressing the GM with the importance of part of your back story, if you've paid for a professional skill I'll let you use it, or anything related to it, and I won't always ask for a roll. If you need to impress me and the world's NPCs more, you are welcome to spend the points.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

I guess some of the problem stems from the fact that if you design a character who is an expert at Flower Arrangement, he probably pays more points for it than if he'd decided to be competent with persuasion (which can generally be used to significant effect in nearly every session).

 

Part of the point of a system like Hero is that costs should at least try to match utility - but there's no clear way to express a character who is well versed in something that isn't very useful. Perhaps utility-driven limitations should be applied to background skills of this type. For instance, "Flower Arrangement" might merit a -2 lim. Sanskrit might be a -2, but Spanish would be -0 (in many, if not most, games.)

[OddHat]

Re: Background skills

 

I guess some of the problem stems from the fact that if you design a character who is an expert at Flower Arrangement, he probably pays more points for it than if he'd decided to be competent with persuasion (which can generally be used to significant effect in nearly every session).

 

Part of the point of a system like Hero is that costs should at least try to match utility - but there's no clear way to express a character who is well versed in something that isn't very useful. Perhaps utility-driven limitations should be applied to background skills of this type. For instance, "Flower Arrangement" might merit a -2 lim. Sanskrit might be a -2, but Spanish would be -0 (in many, if not most, games.)

 

This I mostly agree with. You get a slight break on background skills (+1 per 1 point instead of 2, and the skill modifiers), but it still leaves you with a character who has to choose between 5 points in a skill that may never see use or another level with DCV, which will be constantly useful. It's something I often find fairly cheesy ways to get past.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

I see an interesting dichotomy. I think Lamrok's numbers above re 8-, 11-, 14-, and what they mean reflects the common usage and where a large number of not majority of GMs think. It's where I think most people play and - most importantly - where play experience has set the bar.

 

OTOH, from a realistic perspective (whatever that is... ), I do think that someone good enough to make a living is 8-, don't know if I'd call an expert an 11- but certainly that's a master, and 14- is astronomically good. I say this because almost nobody responds in HERO terms off the cuff, and because the scale of reality includes a ton of prep most of the time and under pressure I think that in one second only masters will get it right around 60% of the time.

 

The problem is the game isn't about reality. My character is sort of Horatio Hornblower, with some clear distinctions from that base, and that is how I take the campaign and how I see most characters in terms of the level of heroism, even if, as in one character, they "simply" are a matronly woman who runs the household affairs. I expect that character to have an encyclopedic knowledge in many areas on a moment's notice, just as mine should regarding experential skills. And in my experience most GMs play to a level where "encyclopedic" is 14-.

 

And in the real world played via HERO, you can be encyclopedic in a few seconds, and that's not realistic actually, anyway. "Extra time" is an odd construct in hobby and background skills whether realistic or romantic. And most GMs won't give you extra time, partly because it's a bit boring and because, they'll say, taking 12 or 18 extra seconds shouldn't make a difference if you know how to haggle (for example).

 

The real problem here, though, as we've been approaching it, is that we're talking about non-plot skills, or skills that are mostly non-plot, anyway. These are mostly color and to the degree they're used they may be for a minor edge in situations but mainly as litlte hooks.

 

Paying to be the best floral arranger in the world (presumably a 16- or such) is hardly worthwhile in almost any genre except a few niche Japanese or other games. But what if you want to be? Is it really worth that investment, when faced with the realities of a campaign? Remember, we're talking about things that are almost never going to come into play - the campaign I'm referencing merely as an example was to be specifically set in England and remain there.

 

Now that I have a little time, here's my character, minus some items inappropriate to share due to playtest/prerelease considerations:

 

 

Sacrificed - Climbing (all that climbing of the mast), a recommended new Regency Naval skill, Indian haggling, any sort of Indian artifact stuff for flavor, any other hobbies. That's just stuff I REMEMBER leaving off, none of it plot-relevant but all too expensive. That's also setting aside that the 12- skill for Regency that I can't say should be something he's EXTREMELy good at but I decided to recast. He was supposed to be a better fighter all around, but I made some cuts there to afford some of the skills he already has. I needed several of the realistic perks given he's a Naval Captain of the Napoleonic Wars. I didn't do a catch-all "Naval skills" as that would be fairly broad and to my mind a bit unfair, though the GM probably would have permitted; that still doesn't address the non-plot background areas.

 

By the way, how do you guys buy Latin as a language? It's only read, not spoken, so it's hard to use the HERO scale.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

Hmmm, on a tangent, maybe "his natural aptitude and charm endeared the hardened sailors to the boy" was a poor turn of phrase...

 

Heh.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

And here is my character:

 

Le Comte de Chareau

 

Val Char Cost

10 STR 0

14 DEX 12

8 CON -4

8 BODY -4

13 INT 3

8 EGO -4

18 PRE 8

14 COM 2

3 PD 1

2 ED 0

3 SPD 6

4 REC 0

16 END 0

17 STUN 0

 

[stats stripped down to what he actually needs]

 

7" RUN 2

2" SWIM 0

4" LEAP 2

 

Some swashbuckling modifications. I like for characters in games like this to have a 4" half move.

 

Characteristics Cost: 24

 

Cost Skill

3 Acting 13-

3 Bribery 13-

3 Climbing 12-

3 Concealment 12-

3 Contortionist 12-

3 Regency Skill 12-

3 Jack of All Trades

1 1) PS: Baker (2 Active Points) 11-

1 2) PS: Farmer (2 Active Points) 11-

4 3) PS: Fashion Sense (5 Active Points) 14-

1 4) PS: Fisherman (2 Active Points) 11-

1 5) PS: French soldier (2 Active Points) 11-

2 6) PS: Vintner (3 Active Points) 12-

7 Disguise 14-

3 High Society 13-

3 Scholar

1 1) KS: Diseases and Maladies (2 Active Points) 11-

1 2) KS: European History (2 Active Points) 11-

1 3) KS: Fashion (2 Active Points) 11-

1 4) KS: French aristocracy (2 Active Points) 11-

1 5) KS: Who's who in English society (2 Active Points) 11-

1 6) KS: Wine (2 Active Points) 11-

2 CK: Paris 11-

1 Language: French (imitate dialects) (5 Active Points)

4 Language: English (idiomatic)

3 Lockpicking 12-

3 Mimicry 12-

3 Persuasion 13-

3 Riding 12-

20 +2 Overall

3 Stealth 12-

3 Streetwise 13-

1 TF: Two-Wheeled Muscle-Powered Ground Vehicles

3 WF: Early Firearms, Blades

Skills Cost: 99

 

Cost Perk

10 Follower - valet

4 Regency perk

10 Money: Wealthy

 

Perks Cost: 24

 

Cost Talent

3 Regency Talent

 

Talents Cost: 3

 

Total Character Cost: 150

 

Disads are pretty much setting-specific.

 

Disadvantage Points: 75

Base Points: 75

Experience Required: 0

Total Experience Available: 0

Experience Unspent: 0

 

Background is shrouded in secrecy - to players anyway. Suffice it to say that he spent a lot of time helping French nobles escape Mme Guillotine.

 

The only compromise on this sheet is the somewhat short shrift given to combat abilities. His two overall levels help somewhat, but he's a character much more at home outside of combat. Other than that, he has every skill he should have at the level he should have it. When combat rolls around he's happy to yield to one of the "vigorous young fellows" in the group. (Le Comte is in his early 60's, though he can apparently still clamber up a rope ladder better than any English sailor in the group )

 

Some of his skills relate to his personal history, some are essentially complementary to his disguise skill. He's designed to reflect a character from "The Scarlett Pimpernel", with an emphasis on non-combat swashbuckling situations - Le Comte would rather escape than fight.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

I see an interesting dichotomy. I think Lamrok's numbers above re 8-' date=' 11-, 14-, and what they mean reflects the [i']common usage[/i] and where a large number of not majority of GMs think. It's where I think most people play and - most importantly - where play experience has set the bar.

 

Actually, I think those numbers came out of a book. I don't have any sources at hand right now, but I don't think I (or Oddhat) made them up.

 

OTOH' date=' from a realistic perspective (whatever that is... ), I do think that someone good enough to make a living is 8-, don't know if I'd call an expert an 11- but certainly that's a master, and 14- is astronomically good. I say this because almost nobody responds in HERO terms off the cuff, and because the scale of reality includes a ton of prep most of the time and under pressure I think that in one second only masters will get it right around 60% of the time.[/quote']

 

That depends on how you set the base time for skill use, and how you set the bar for allocating skill penalties. That ton of prep might just be part of the base time. If you do without it, perhaps you take a penalty on the skill.

 

And in the real world played via HERO' date=' you can be encyclopedic in a few seconds, and that's not realistic actually, anyway. "Extra time" is an odd construct in hobby and background skills whether realistic or romantic. And most GMs won't give you extra time, partly because it's a bit boring and because, they'll say, taking 12 or 18 extra seconds shouldn't make a difference if you know how to haggle (for example).[/quote']

 

Reality isn't a necessary component in heroic fiction. In most heroic fiction (including movies) characters tend to be able to wield skills in a small fraction of the time it would take to perform them in reality. Pacing is more important than a strict adherence to reality. I prefer that games follow a similar model.

 

Paying to be the best floral arranger in the world (presumably a 16- or such) is hardly worthwhile in almost any genre except a few niche Japanese or other games. But what if you want to be? Is it really worth that investment' date=' when faced with the realities of a campaign? Remember, we're talking about things that are almost never going to come into play - the campaign I'm referencing merely as an example was to be specifically set in England and remain there. [/quote']

 

Perhaps perks could provide some relief here. The best flower arranger in the city (when I wrote that I was actually thinking of Dion O'Bannion, "Flower arranger for the Chicago mob") might be worth a 1 point perk.

 

 

By the way' date=' how do you guys buy Latin as a language? It's only read, not spoken, so it's hard to use the HERO scale.[/quote']

 

Just because most people don't speak latin doesn't mean they can't (as underscored by recent events in the Vatican.) If two characters know latin, they should be able to converse in it. For most purposes, all you need is fluency, though - anything higher is a waste (this is how I have bought it in the past, including in your own game. )

[OddHat]

Re: Background skills

 

Actually' date=' I think those numbers came out of a book. I don't have any sources at hand right now, but I don't think I (or Oddhat) made them up.[/quote']

Mine come from 5thER, p.43, however I'm being slightly more generous as far as when not to bother roling. I also think that characters should be portrayed as competent most of the time; my own style tends to be to reflect that (and speed up play) by not bothering to ask for a roll for what I would consider a routine task at that skill level.

[Black Rose]

Re: Background skills

 

I see an interesting dichotomy. I think Lamrok's numbers above re 8-' date=' 11-, 14-, and what they mean reflects the [i']common usage[/i] and where a large number of not majority of GMs think. It's where I think most people play and - most importantly - where play experience has set the bar.

 

OTOH, from a realistic perspective (whatever that is... ), I do think that someone good enough to make a living is 8-, don't know if I'd call an expert an 11- but certainly that's a master, and 14- is astronomically good. I say this because almost nobody responds in HERO terms off the cuff, and because the scale of reality includes a ton of prep most of the time and under pressure I think that in one second only masters will get it right around 60% of the time.

 

When it comes to skill rolls, I tend to follow Markdoc's guidelines, which are pretty close to yours. An 8- is enough to do the job, most of the time, but you might be in trouble if a crisis hits (come on, any kind of penalty on an 8- roll is going to hit you hard). An 11- is someone who is good at their job; not phenomenal, not envelope-pushing, but damn good. This is the guy the boss relies upon to get things done, the one you know can handle it. A 14- is phenomenal, or at least the best most people are likely to meet.

 

Now, all that is for a heroic setting; superheroic settings let you have things like KS: Quantum Physics 18- and still not get scouted by every world-class university, multinational corporation and government on Earth. Frankly, if you've got a skill at this level, you should be getting offers from alien races we don't even know about.

 

The problem is the game isn't about reality. My character is sort of Horatio Hornblower, with some clear distinctions from that base, and that is how I take the campaign and how I see most characters in terms of the level of heroism, even if, as in one character, they "simply" are a matronly woman who runs the household affairs. I expect that character to have an encyclopedic knowledge in many areas on a moment's notice, just as mine should regarding experential skills. And in my experience most GMs play to a level where "encyclopedic" is 14-.

 

A 14- being "encyclopedic" makes a lot of sense to me. Come on, you've got a better than 90% chance to succeed, right off the bat. And that roll is only going to be made during "challenging situations". How often is that? I'd say one time in three, maybe four. So really, you're going to succeed at any tasks involving the skill:

 

100% of 2/3 = ~66.66%.........................non-challenging situations

90% of 1/3 = 30.25%.........................challenging situations

Total Success Rate = 96.95%

 

Of course, the non-challenging/challenging ratios are off the top of my head, but I think they are pretty reasonable.

 

By the way, how do you guys buy Latin as a language? It's only read, not spoken, so it's hard to use the HERO scale.

 

Especially considering the Regency period, it was spoken; not as a living language, granted, but it was the language of educated gentlemen. I'd go for Fluent Conversation, with Literacy if it's not standard. Actually, I'd say you have to pay for the Literacy first, along with the Basic Conversation. There's really no reason to have it much past that.

[Markdoc]

Re: Background skills

 

For the language question, I allow a 1 pt "read/write only" option. Most people who can read latin can also speak it, so latin was perhaps not the best example. Members of the curia for example, do converse in Latin and I have known Jesuits who do also.

 

However, I don't know of anyone who can speak ancient egyptian, though I know people who can read hieroglyphs - even fluently. This option also comes in handy for that pesky 1 point cross-family familiarity in languages. Having Danish gives me 1 point in German (apparently), but in truth I can't really understand much german (unless the speak slowly and very simply) and I can't speak it at all. On the other hand, I *can* puzzle my way through a german text as long as it's not too complicated (a newspaper article, say).

 

Cheers, Mark

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

Mine come from 5thER' date=' p.43, however I'm being slightly more generous as far as when not to bother roling. I also think that characters should be portrayed as competent most of the time; my own style tends to be to reflect that (and speed up play) by not bothering to ask for a roll for what I would consider a routine task at that skill level.[/quote']

 

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about my personal GM style here. As a GM, I don't ask people to roll too often - missed rolls on routine tasks can bounce the game off in directions it doesn't need to go. In the last Hero session I ran, (a mystery, which required a lot of player investigation,) I think I asked for a grand total of three rolls - everything else was deemed too routine to need a roll - posession of a skill at adequate level was sufficient to gain access to the information sought.

 

As a player, I have no way of knowing how a GM is going to deal with the issue, so it is best to build a character who can function adequately if a GM decides you need to roll frequently. The guidelines in the book spell out the baseline for where skills should be, and I tend to keep those in mind when spending points.

 

Most players tend to be pretty keen on rolling dice, though. So, GMs that hand-wave most skills aren't necessarily making the game more entertaining. You need to be sure that you are gaining something for the players when you do this.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

Actually, I think those numbers came out of a book. I don't have any sources at hand right now, but I don't think I (or Oddhat) made them up.

 

That depends on how you set the base time for skill use, and how you set the bar for allocating skill penalties. That ton of prep might just be part of the base time. If you do without it, perhaps you take a penalty on the skill.

 

Reality isn't a necessary component in heroic fiction. In most heroic fiction (including movies) characters tend to be able to wield skills in a small fraction of the time it would take to perform them in reality. Pacing is more important than a strict adherence to reality. I prefer that games follow a similar model.

 

Agreed, I'm just referencing how people tend to want to talk about "realism", and it's my (sometimes-mistaken, depending on the person) assumption, depending on their tone, that they mean realism without quotes and without respect to genre specifically. Some people do, some don't. But I misunderstood that the conversation above was real-world, not HERO-world. I'm fine with the HERO-world definition, but I think it betrays the difference, AND I think that it begs the higher character competency - a character shouldn't simply (in many more romantic adventures) be "good enough to make a living", they should be somewhere between that and world class expert. IMHO.

 

Perhaps perks could provide some relief here. The best flower arranger in the city (when I wrote that I was actually thinking of Dion O'Bannion, "Flower arranger for the Chicago mob") might be worth a 1 point perk.

 

It's a good idea. I'd suggest it'd be worthwhile for the rules to embody something like "trivial skills" as a 1 point Perk that really doesn't need/require rolls except in odd situations, in which case they can be as per GM fiat. That would probably go a long way towards all sorts of resolutions, even if it opens a munchkin door. All it needs, though, is a STOP sign and a point that a trivial skill does not affect plotlines except maybe once in a very rare occassion (such as a year of gaming - I could see this for many background areas).

 

Just because most people don't speak latin doesn't mean they can't (as underscored by recent events in the Vatican.) If two characters know latin, they should be able to converse in it. For most purposes, all you need is fluency, though - anything higher is a waste (this is how I have bought it in the past, including in your own game. )

 

I misphrased my question - I meant to say that (as Black Rose mentioned) you can't learn Latin without reading it (realistically in most genres anyway, an ancient character in a modern setting or an ancient character could of course speak without reading it). And the question then is how people buy it, and whether people buy fluency + literacy (thx much, Black Rose) or just fluency or what. I pretty much ignore literacy in general and just assume it, although I wouldn't of course in a genre where it mattered.

 

As to le Comte, by the way, it was a shame we weren't able to play at the same time as I missed the first adventure and you the second - I was looking forward to a particular rivalry that would have occurred, and not so much the French/English thing (if you see his background, you probably figured it out and what Regency Perk I bought...bwa ha ha...- I did so without knowing, btw, that this was the same ability your character had, as I didn't really connect that when you wrote "dandy" you meant it in the true genre sense and the perk that brings).

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about my personal GM style here. As a GM, I don't ask people to roll too often - missed rolls on routine tasks can bounce the game off in directions it doesn't need to go. In the last Hero session I ran, (a mystery, which required a lot of player investigation,) I think I asked for a grand total of three rolls - everything else was deemed too routine to need a roll - posession of a skill at adequate level was sufficient to gain access to the information sought.

 

As a player, I have no way of knowing how a GM is going to deal with the issue, so it is best to build a character who can function adequately if a GM decides you need to roll frequently. The guidelines in the book spell out the baseline for where skills should be, and I tend to keep those in mind when spending points.

 

Most players tend to be pretty keen on rolling dice, though. So, GMs that hand-wave most skills aren't necessarily making the game more entertaining. You need to be sure that you are gaining something for the players when you do this.

I like to roll dice. I miss it in PBEMs though it's eminently logical of course not to do so. And rolling virtually is just ho-hum.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

I like to roll dice. I miss it in PBEMs though it's eminently logical of course not to do so. And rolling virtually is just ho-hum.

 

I like rolling dice also - but I feel a bit uncouth admitting it in public.

[Lamrok]

Re: Background skills

 

As to le Comte' date=' by the way, it was a shame we weren't able to play at the same time as I missed the first adventure and you the second - I was looking forward to a particular rivalry that would have occurred, and not so much the French/English thing (if you see his background, you probably figured it out and what Regency Perk I bought...bwa ha ha...- I did so without knowing, btw, that this was the same ability your character had, as I didn't really connect that when you wrote "dandy" you meant it in the true genre sense and the perk that brings).[/quote']

 

There's nothing I like better than a PC rival, and with no Chromatic, I need another vict-I mean-candidate. I imagine we'll have other chances to play the characters in the future.

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

There's nothing I like better than a PC rival' date=' and with no Chromatic, I need another vict-I mean-candidate. I imagine we'll have other chances to play the characters in the future.[/quote']

I'm sure - looking forward to it!

[Gadodel]

Re: Background skills

 

Three PSs that I am thinking about using...

 

'I've heard something about that!' PS-Listener 12-

 

~This might cover anything from a rumor to a piece of music.

 

'I've seen something about that!' PS-Observer 12-

 

~This might cover anything from an eyewitness account to a film or movie.

 

'I've read something about that!' PS-Reader 12-

 

~This might cover anything from a comic, to a newpaper article to something read on the internet.

 

 

Three nifty PSs that cover a lot of territory. The Game Master could easily use the 'Extraordinary Skill' rules to exemplify adjectives such as 'Big' or 'Remarkable'. I.E. 'Oddhat has a remarkable interest in reading' PS-Reader 16- and so on.

 

Thoughts?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Background skills

 

Three PSs that I am thinking about using...

 

'I've heard something about that!' PS-Listener 12-

 

~This might cover anything from a rumor to a piece of music.

 

'I've seen something about that!' PS-Observer 12-

 

~This might cover anything from an eyewitness account to a film or movie.

 

'I've read something about that!' PS-Reader 12-

 

~This might cover anything from a comic, to a newpaper article to something read on the internet.

 

 

Three nifty PSs that cover a lot of territory. The Game Master could easily use the 'Extraordinary Skill' rules to exemplify adjectives such as 'Big' or 'Remarkable'. I.E. 'Oddhat has a remarkable interest in reading' PS-Reader 16- and so on.

 

Thoughts?

 

This definitely fits my thought processes on how Skills can be utilized... especially in the supers or wild cinematic levels of games. My players would also understand that big minuses would come into play if the stuff was really obscure... but mostly I would use it, not to have the player charcter KNOW all the facts and data... but for them to know where to start looking.

 

Good stuff! Rep

[Gadodel]

Re: Background skills

 

but mostly I would use it, not to have the player charcter KNOW all the facts and data... but for them to know where to start looking.

 

Good stuff! Rep

 

Exactly.

 

[Gadodel]

Re: Background skills

 

Another PS skill I've been thinking about has been 'Student'.

 

'In High School, I was taught' PS-Education 8-

'In Junior College (or tech school), I was taught' PS-Education 11-

'While getting my Bachelor's Degree, I was taught' PS-Education 12- 13-

'While getting my Master's Degree, I was taught' PS-Education 14- 16-

'While getting my JD/MD/PhD (etc), I was taught' PS-Education 17- or more.

 

This is a rough draft.

 

It reflects one's Diploma at various 'Degrees' of expertise.

 

I thought about doing something like this to reflect exposure to broad areas of information or interest.

 

Example: I have a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. I might have a SS Psychology 12-. However, as part of my "Natural Science' requirement, I took Astronomy, Biology, Math and Physics.

 

I could take an SS-Astronomy 8- etc OR I could us PS-Education 12 to reflect that I know something beyond the Psychology-though I may not find a job as a direct result of that part of my education.

 

Thoughts?

[Black Rose]

Re: Background skills

 

Another PS skill I've been thinking about has been 'Student'.

 

'In High School, I was taught' PS-Education 8-

'In Junior College (or tech school), I was taught' PS-Education 11-

'While getting my Bachelor's Degree, I was taught' PS-Education 12- 13-

'While getting my Master's Degree, I was taught' PS-Education 14- 16-

'While getting my JD/MD/PhD (etc), I was taught' PS-Education 17- or more.

 

This is a rough draft.

 

It reflects one's Diploma at various 'Degrees' of expertise.

 

I thought about doing something like this to reflect exposure to broad areas of information or interest.

 

Example: I have a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. I might have a SS Psychology 12-. However, as part of my "Natural Science' requirement, I took Astronomy, Biology, Math and Physics.

 

I could take an SS-Astronomy 8- etc OR I could us PS-Education 12 to reflect that I know something beyond the Psychology-though I may not find a job as a direct result of that part of my education.

 

Thoughts?

 

My G_d, this is beautiful, Gadodel. I REALLY like this one. Of course, I also really like your PS: Listener/Observer/Reader set, too. I've been reading some in-depth Batman fic lately (Cat-Tales - I recommend it) and these skills seem like a great way to represent someone who just seems to know way too much - without having to get into using powers to simulate knowing every move somebody's going to make. Kind of in the vein of the Universal Jack of All Trades/ Translator/ Scholar/ Scientist/ Traveller/ Connections Talent set.

[Gadodel]

Re: Background skills

 

Thanks.

 

The one draw back I can think of, is that it is American-centric. Other countries use different terms to describe their 'Degrees' of expertise. I figure a translation shouldn't be too hard and I'd welcome any feedback on this point.

 

[zornwil]

Re: Background skills

 

Three PSs that I am thinking about using...

 

'I've heard something about that!' PS-Listener 12-

 

~This might cover anything from a rumor to a piece of music.

 

'I've seen something about that!' PS-Observer 12-

 

~This might cover anything from an eyewitness account to a film or movie.

 

'I've read something about that!' PS-Reader 12-

 

~This might cover anything from a comic, to a newpaper article to something read on the internet.

 

 

Three nifty PSs that cover a lot of territory. The Game Master could easily use the 'Extraordinary Skill' rules to exemplify adjectives such as 'Big' or 'Remarkable'. I.E. 'Oddhat has a remarkable interest in reading' PS-Reader 16- and so on.

 

Thoughts?

Excellent suggestion, thanks a lot! (and repped)

[Gadodel]

Re: Background skills

 

Thanks.

 

I am currently adding additional 'trades' to my list.

 

I may reveal more at a later date.