|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 1, 2013 18:04:49 GMT
The skill system allows characters with extremely broad abilities. In some cases, this is a good thing: the Doctor, for example, needs to have a high skill in all Science. But for other characters, this makes little sense. According to her character sheet, Donna has professional-level skill at piloting helicopters!
The solution to this is obviously areas of expertise. The big problem with them, however, is that more than one per skill is not cost-effective. For instance, I can spend 3 skill points to have Science 3. I can spend 1 skill point (total 4) to have an area of expertise of Physics. My skill to answer questions of physics is 5, and for all other science-related questions it's 3. If I spend another skill point (total 5) for a second area of expertise in Biology, my skills in Physics and Biology are 5 while all other science-related areas are still 3. But wait! If I had spent those two skill points directly on Science, instead of on areas of expertise, my Science skill would have been 5 for all areas of science. It is simply not cost-effective to have more than one area of expertise.
But what if you want to play a normal human character who is an airline pilot? The most cost-effective way to do this is to give him a Transport of 3, ignoring the fact that this also lets him pilot helicopters, spaceships, and motorcycles as a professional. Similarly, a normal human musician would want to take Craft 3, even though this makes him capable of painting, dancing, and smithying as well as a professional. The book vaguely suggests penalties to unfamiliar activities in the case of Craft, but really, this problem is for every skill.
The real solution is, I think, to limit normal characters in basic skill, and require them to take areas of expertise to go further, even if this would normally not be cost-effective. For instance, most adults in industrialized countries would have a Transport skill of 1, with an area of expertise of Cars, for 2 skill points. The airline pilot mentioned above would have Transport 1 (Cars +2, Airplanes +2), for 3 skill points. The musician would have Craft 1 (Musical Instrument +2), for 2 skill points.
Exactly what the broad-based skill limit is would need to be decided by the Game Master, considering the culture and technology of the character. Most modern adults from industrialized countries would be limited to Transport 1, but a case could be made for Technology 2 or even 3. Athletes would reasonably have relatively high Athletics skills even without considering their areas of expertise.
To allow truly amazing characters in a single area of expertise, GMs might allow a character to double-specialize. For instance, an incredible painter might have Craft 1 (Painting +4), for 3 skill points. The GM might limit each character to a single double-specialization to keep skill levels in narrow areas from getting out of control.
And if the player wants a cinematically unrealistic character, like the scientist who knows everything about science or the pilot who can fly anything at all, he can get special dispensation from the GM to bypass the usual GM-imposed limit on the relevant skill. Perhaps the GM will allow each character to choose one unlimited skill, or maybe unlocking a skill's limit requires sacrificing story points.
I present the above for your consideration and comments.
|
|
|
Post by chickenpaddy on Jun 1, 2013 20:05:20 GMT
I agree with you that some of the skills are a little too broad (Craft being the main one), but I'm unsure of this as a solution. It almost seems too limiting given the theme.
Doctor Who is a sci-fi television show. As such, it is subject to certain tropes, among them being unrealistic scientists and technical experts. Heck, a pirate captain was able to pilot a spaceship for crying out loud!
I don't mind the skills as they are, even with the Area of Expertise rules. I have yet to have a player overthink the skill rules as such and use the rules to build a backstory. The only real culprit is that darned Craft skill!
I have a player who chose Craft as a primary skill, with an AoE in Ventriloquism. The thought behind this is the character would get out of scrapes by thowing her voice to confuse the enemy. However, she has begun trying to use Craft to do things that are very unlike ventriloquism, like make slings, or smith objects. When I told her to take a penalty to the skill, she complained saying her skill should count and I was being unfair.
I'm tempted to break Craft up into two skills, Craft, and Perform, a la older ediitons of DnD. Craft would house all of the handy-work things, such as smithing, basket weaving, woodcarving, and so forth. Perform would be all the performing arts, like singing, dancing, acting, and stuff like that. I'm not sure how well that would work, though. To me, it would make sense given to absurd generalness of Craft in its current form.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Siskoid on Jun 1, 2013 20:20:37 GMT
Or you could just take the Craft skill as being generally good with your hands and have an artistic streak, while the AoE is an actual learned specialty.
Ventriloquism 5 General creativity/craftiness 3
I haven't had problems with the Craft skill since 1) most players leave it at 0 because their backstory doesn't make them artists or artisans, 2) those that do use Craft for character building (pretty consistent, like sitting down at every piano he sees) and its AoE for plot/gaming effects (Storytelling to spellbind primitive minds, etc.).
But I would approve of you being stingy with a player trying to abuse the stat. Apply Tech Level penalties, "you've never played this instrument before" penalties, etc. Don't penalize the player, actually, just ramp up the difficulty level. Same thing, but player doesn't feel targeted.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 1, 2013 20:28:07 GMT
Doctor Who is a sci-fi television show. As such, it is subject to certain tropes, among them being unrealistic scientists and technical experts. Yes, but I took those into account, where the GM can allow a certain unrealistic, cinematic trope to a character by letting that character ignore the limit for a given skill. A cinematic scientist who knows equally about every science still won't be able to easily make slings and gun barrels when their Craft is 1 (Ventriloquism +2). The problem is only most obvious with Craft, but it exists for all skills. Jack Harkness has a Convince of 5 because he's charming and sexy, but it also gives him the ability to talk Daleks out of shooting him and to lead armies into battle. The Moffet-era has gone way over the top, even for Doctor Who.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 1, 2013 20:36:31 GMT
Or you could just take the Craft skill as being generally good with your hands and have an artistic streak, while the AoE is an actual learned specialty. Yes, I believe this is the way the skill is meant to be interpreted. In other words, your players have abided by the limits I suggested. I usually have pretty reasonable players; I'm less worried about abuse than I am about miffing players who reasonably expected that their Transport 3 would let them have a skill of 3 when they hopped into that helicopter. There are also times when characters do hit a wall. There's simply no way that an Earthling can use his Knowledge to remember facts about the history of Raxacoricofallapatorius, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by da professor on Jun 2, 2013 7:10:26 GMT
I usually have pretty reasonable players; I'm less worried about abuse than I am about miffing players who reasonably expected that their Transport 3 would let them have a skill of 3 when they hopped into that helicopter. If it's justified by his background, I would let him fly the copter. If it wasn't, I would apply penalties.
|
|
|
Post by Siskoid on Jun 2, 2013 11:32:09 GMT
Something else that has occurred to me about playing the skills rules as they are is that this is Doctor Who - a show where ordinary people succeed sometimes almost by dumb luck. Sometimes, half the fun is justifying why someone rolled well (or badly) despite all logic. Jamie jumps into that helicopter, makes a fantastic roll, and he can fly it! That, to me, is an opportunity for comedy, as he punches buttons and pulls on sticks and through luck, manages to get the thing to go where he wants... but it's a bumpy ride full of close calls as he fights back nausea.
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jun 2, 2013 12:50:39 GMT
Officially, some skills have been listed in the UNIT and First Doctor Sourcebooks as having an Area of Expertise without the usual level 3 prerequisite of the skill. It is safe to acknowledge this as an official waiving of this prerequisite.
Areas of Expertise in brackets ( )
Specifically:
UNIT Sourcebook
Sergeant Benton Knowledge 1 (UNIT)
Mike Yates Knowledge 2 (Military Tactics, UNIT)
Harry Sullivan Knowledge 1 (The Navy) Science 1 (Biology)
Erisa Magumbo Knowledge 2 (Military Tactics, UNIT)
First Doctor Sourcebook
Susan Foreman Athletics 1 (Dance)
Steven Taylor Knowledge 2 (Astrogation); Science 1 (Astrophysics); Technology 2 (Engineering)
Polly Wright Craft 1 (Typist); Science 1 (Chemistry)
Ian Chesterton Fighting 2 (Martial Arts)
Dodo Chaplet Convince 1 (Charm)
Ben Jackson Transport 2 (Sailing)
Viking Raiders Knowledge 1 (Navigation); Transport 2 (Sailing)
|
|
|
Post by chickenpaddy on Jun 2, 2013 14:13:43 GMT
Officially, some skills have been listed in the UNIT and First Doctor Sourcebooks as having an Area of Expertise without the usual level 3 prerequisite of the skill. It is safe to acknowledge this as an official waiving of this perquisite. Yes, but those are all premade characters. Nowhere in the books does it say the prerequisite rule no longer applies. Still, if you want to run games like that I won't stop you. I just want more direct confirmation, myself.
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jun 2, 2013 15:08:33 GMT
Yes, but those are all premade characters. Nowhere in the books does it say the prerequisite rule no longer applies. Still, if you want to run games like that I won't stop you. I just want more direct confirmation, myself. I totally agree - I did question this officially over the UNIT book but got no answer. Since they did it again in the first doc book, I see no reason why we shouldn't take it as a change. I would, like yourself, want to see an official clarification on this...
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 2, 2013 15:14:36 GMT
Sounds like someone forgot about the prerequisite!
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jun 2, 2013 16:47:14 GMT
Sounds like someone forgot about the prerequisite! Not for two books and not after being informed of it before the First Doctor Sourcebook in the UNIT Sourcebook errata section, no. It's intentional, hence my enthusiasm for it and why we need official clarification post-haste.
|
|
|
Post by Mytholder on Jun 10, 2013 20:24:08 GMT
It's not an official official change yet, but it'll almost certainly be the rule in some future incarnation of the rulebooks.
|
|
djd
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 34
Favourite Doctors: Troughton, Baker, Smith
|
Post by djd on Jul 18, 2013 23:45:30 GMT
My spin on it would be to give one free specialisation per point of skill. If the task falls into one of these areas you can attempt it at no penalty but if it doesn't you attempt it at penalty of half your skill level rounded down. For example, Matt has a Science skill of 3. His specialisations are Physics, Astrophysics and Maths. If he attempts a biology based task he does so at skill level 1
|
|
rulandor
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 149
Favourite Doctors: Three, Four, Seven, War, Twelve
|
Post by rulandor on Jul 23, 2013 16:56:36 GMT
Perhaps the special entries in npc stat blocks in the UNIT book and the first doctor sourcebook aren't so much expression of a new rule, but more the expression of a philosophy, which, I think, is characteristic of the whole game: Don't stick to rules if a certain character concept (or dramatic situation) demands alterations. If a character, for example, has experience with picking locks, but is otherwise bad at Subterfuge, the whole skill is implemented only for picking locks, and that's it. Or is a decent dancer but otherwise completely incompetent in anything what a craftsman or artist does. My reaction to some of those entries in the above mentioned books was: Hey, concepts reign, rules follow! That's the spirit. I can understand why the authors feel a bit helpless when asked whether there is an official new rules version. Although I might suggest an additional rule myself, contrary to my praise for philosophy! Minor Bad Trait: Limited Skill Prerequisite: Having the relevant skill on 1+. Chose a skill in which you have only limited proficiency, above and beyond use of AoEs. Chose an AoE, even before reaching skill 3, and you can then only roll for applications falling unter this AoE. For any other use, two prerequisites exist: 1) Invest a Story Point. 2) Deliver a reasonable explanation (in addition to expending a SP).
|
|
|
Post by Curufea on Jul 24, 2013 0:40:49 GMT
More in keeping with Doctor Who I think is - any book published for DWAITAS by Cubicle 7 is canon - especially if rules vary in different books ;-p
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 24, 2013 3:32:02 GMT
Disregarding my initial idea, here's how you really make the skills work.
First, come up with a background. You don't have to be too specific.
Then put points into your skills as per the rules.
Any time someone tries to do something with a skill that's not possible given their background, consider them unskilled. For instance, if a character is an ordinary 21st century human, their chance to have any Knowledge skill for Gallifreyan current events is nil, and so they'd have to roll as unskilled. If a professional musician wants to roll Craft to paint a picture, sorry, there's nothing in your background to indicate you're a painter.
That's how the rules are supposed to work. The background is not just narrative fluff; the referee uses it to decide whether a character is able to apply his or her full skill to a roll.
Done right you really don't need my suggestion of "realistic skills" at all.
|
|
djd
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 34
Favourite Doctors: Troughton, Baker, Smith
|
Post by djd on Jul 24, 2013 17:06:35 GMT
I think that sounds very reasonable but I suppose the area of expertise bit comes in for skills where there is some bleed across from one specialisation to another. For instance, a top physicist is clearly going to have a high degree of maths ability, although possibly not as much as a top mathematician has. A skilled footballer is going to be good at running but not so good as someone who has simply trained to run... In any field of academic endeavour it's impossible to have achieved a high level (in game terms 4 or more) without having specialised to some degree (which is why i disagree with paying extra for areas of expertise). Because of all this I think a rule would be helpful but I just don't think the current one has it right
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 24, 2013 19:33:39 GMT
In any field of academic endeavour it's impossible to have achieved a high level (in game terms 4 or more) without having specialised to some degree (which is why i disagree with paying extra for areas of expertise). In the Doctor Who universe, this is demonstrably untrue. Characters we meet might be history professors who can be quizzed on any aspect of their world's history; they don't specialize, and they almost always wear tweed jackets and glasses. They may specialize in a certain period, but they know a lot about all of it. This is especially true of scientists: there have been many of them over the years, and they're interested in any sort of science, though they usually have a specialty. When they're not wearing lab coats, they're often as nerdy as the academic. The Doctor is exceptional because he doesn't specialize; he just has a ridiculously high Science score.
When you encounter a computer from any society in any galaxy, your Technology skill will let you work on it. Imagine someone who'd never seen a 20th century computer before booting to DOS and just making it work. That's what happens in the Doctor Who universe. And computers usually consist of a lot of hardwired circuits that work the same way whether you're from 20th century Earth or 51st century Stormcage. One skill covers it all. It's completely unrealistic, but it's television.
So in Doctor Who it is quite possible to be really good at every aspect of a particular skill without ever having specialized. If you specialize, you get that on top of your skill. It's not realistic, it's cinematic.
|
|
djd
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 34
Favourite Doctors: Troughton, Baker, Smith
|
Post by djd on Jul 24, 2013 19:38:01 GMT
Lol yes you make a good point. I still don't see the logic in paying for specialisations though....
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 24, 2013 19:42:05 GMT
'Cause it's bonus awesomeness.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Aug 2, 2013 20:52:52 GMT
Don't forget that the Tech Level modifiers will put limits on people with from the wrong era trying to use technology. Someone with a 5 in Tech from the 19th century will have a -2 for running a PC, and a -10 operating Dalek technology.
|
|