|
Post by Curufea on Jan 5, 2010 22:15:52 GMT
Much like an Area of Expertise, however it applies to skills of any level (even less than 3). It only gives a +1 bonus for the area of specialisation. Cost is half a skill point.
|
|
|
Post by allivingstone on Jan 6, 2010 1:53:06 GMT
I really get where you're coming from with the desire to get a bit more focus and individuality within the skills. However, I don't like the idea of 'half-points' - it feels a little bit too crunchy IMO. A couple of comments/suggestions:
1) You can get much the same effect by eliminating the minimum skill level for taking an AoE. E.g. Athletics 1 (AoE: Running +2). While it lacks the granularity of an 'Area of Specialisation', this works quite well in play, and it follows the same logic as Areas of Expertise in the RAW (which avoids an additional sub-system).
2) For increased granularity, at the cost of adding a sub-system, allow an AoE to be split into two different +1 bonuses. E.g. Athletics 1 (AoE: Running +1, Swimming +1), or even Athletics 1 (AoE: Running +1); Transport 1 (AoE: Motorcycles +1). Which is exactly what you're proposing, but avoids the extra crunch of adding fractions to chargen. Nobody's going to spend a single half-point anyway - the other one'll go into a +1 somewhere.
YMMV of course.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Jan 6, 2010 16:20:31 GMT
Hullo, Al, As usual, your wisdom is very good. I don't like the idea of doing it this way at all, half-points or no half-points, but to be honest, I can see where folks might adapt this in their games. Definitely not in my PBeM, however!
|
|
|
Post by dvalkyrie74 on Mar 2, 2010 2:28:52 GMT
actually in other games I have seen specializations with skills like Armed Combat (Energy weapons) or Armed Combat (Projectile weapons) where you got the skill, but also received a specialty to give a more diverse skill set. Other examples were Knowledge (Human Culture), Knowledge (Interstellar law), Science (Archaeology), etc. The specialties would give a +1 bonus.
An idea I have been tooling around with is giving the players a specialty for every skill point they have in a skill to give a more diverse set of skills. For example Science 3 would allow for AoE Archaeology, Chemistry, and Physics, each giving a +1 to those AoE.
My two cents. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 2, 2010 3:18:00 GMT
The way areas of expertise work in the game as written, one should never acquire more than one area of expertise in a single skill. Having two would cost you two skill points, but you could have just bumped up your skill two points to get the same effective skill for all applications of that skill.
Clearly, areas of expertise are not meant to represent the minor specializations you may find in other games; they represent extreme focus. Anyone with an area of expertise should be strongly identified with that area. Someone with Science 3 is good at science, but someone with Science 3 (Particle Physics) can only be a particle physicist.
If you really want to fine-tune skills, try the following. First, don't account for it with skill points. Instead, choose an "area of specialization" to have a +1 bonus, then choose an "area of weakness" to have a −1 bonus. For every specialization you choose, you must take a weakness too. You can choose as many "area pairs" as you like, but you may not raise the bonus/penalty more than ±1. You may still use the rules for areas of expertise alongside this, but you may not specialize in or have a weakness in your area of expertise.
The GM must, of course, make sure that each specialization and weakness are approximately equal in utility. No fair specializing in Fighting (Kickboxing) and having a weakness in Fighting (Sumo Wrestling)!
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Mar 2, 2010 16:25:23 GMT
Hullo, dvalkyrie74, actually in other games I have seen specializations with skills like Armed Combat (Energy weapons) or Armed Combat (Projectile weapons) where you got the skill, but also received a specialty to give a more diverse skill set. Other examples were Knowledge (Human Culture), Knowledge (Interstellar law), Science (Archaeology), etc. The specialties would give a +1 bonus. This largely depends on the game system and how generalised the system of Specializations or Areas of Expertise or whatever is. Sure, you could do Marksman 3 (Energy weapons +2) or you can do Marksman 3 (Laser pistol +2), but it depends on the granularity of that element of the game mechanics for Skills. An idea I have been tooling around with is giving the players a specialty for every skill point they have in a skill to give a more diverse set of skills. For example Science 3 would allow for AoE Archaeology, Chemistry, and Physics, each giving a +1 to those AoE. My two cents. Mark Personally, I don't like this type of granularity for the specializations, but I can see where it would make for a different type of skill set, and I can see this being done with a Time Lord who has Science 8. Like you said, my $0.02.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Mar 2, 2010 16:29:47 GMT
Hullo, stormcrow, The way areas of expertise work in the game as written, one should never acquire more than one area of expertise in a single skill. Having two would cost you two skill points, but you could have just bumped up your skill two points to get the same effective skill for all applications of that skill. Actually, the only comment I want to make here is the fact that the game system states specifically in the sidebar on Areas of Expertise that one can take multiple AoEs in a given Skill. Aside from that, there are some practical limits to Skill values at the beginning of play. But that's another matter. That said, I suspect some folks will never take any AoE during the games they play, some GMs will actually get rid of AoEs from the game to keep it simple, and a whole variety of other options in between.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 2, 2010 18:02:12 GMT
Actually, the only comment I want to make here is the fact that the game system states specifically in the sidebar on Areas of Expertise that one can take multiple AoEs in a given Skill. Yes, you can, but it's not cost-effective. Consider: For five Skill Points you can have either: Science 3 (Particle Physics +2, Anthropology +2) or Science 5. In both cases, a question concerning particle physics will be answered using an effective skill level of 5. But if the question is about molecular biology, the first one has an effective skill of 3, while the second has an effective skill of 5.
|
|
|
Post by dvalkyrie74 on Mar 2, 2010 18:31:35 GMT
It is not cost-effective if the specialties and the skills cost the same to improve. This goes back to the half skill point idea above.
What about making AOE an option that does not cost skill points? For example if you have a 3 in a skill, you get an AOE skill at a +1. If the skill is say 5, you get 2 AOE skills at a +1 each or 1 AOE at a +2 rating.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Mar 2, 2010 19:42:42 GMT
Hullo, Stormcrow, Actually, the only comment I want to make here is the fact that the game system states specifically in the sidebar on Areas of Expertise that one can take multiple AoEs in a given Skill. Yes, you can, but it's not cost-effective. Consider: For five Skill Points you can have either: Science 3 (Particle Physics +2, Anthropology +2) or Science 5. In both cases, a question concerning particle physics will be answered using an effective skill level of 5. But if the question is about molecular biology, the first one has an effective skill of 3, while the second has an effective skill of 5. Here's the problem I have with what you did in the example above. While the Character Points are the same in both examples, I would say that if the character in the first example has two radically different areas of speciality (Particle Physics and Anthropology), I would have the character be somewhat older than 34 years of age, and have a whale of a good reason for taking such different disciplines. Myself, I would take the character as Science 5 (Particle Physics +2) or Science 5 (Anthropology +2) but that's just me. But this is just an example regardless of muchkinism and power gaming, with more numbers for the buck, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Mar 2, 2010 19:46:12 GMT
Hullo, dvalkyrie74, It is not cost-effective if the specialties and the skills cost the same to improve. This goes back to the half skill point idea above. What about making AOE an option that does not cost skill points? For example if you have a 3 in a skill, you get an AOE skill at a +1. If the skill is say 5, you get 2 AOE skills at a +1 each or 1 AOE at a +2 rating. Mark All I will say here, Mark, is: Have you actually run the game yet? The AoE rules work fine as they are, and to be honest, are no different than some of the games I'm familiar with these past few years.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 2, 2010 21:14:51 GMT
Here's the problem I have with what you did in the example above. While the Character Points are the same in both examples, I would say that if the character in the first example has two radically different areas of speciality (Particle Physics and Anthropology), I would have the character be somewhat older than 34 years of age, and have a whale of a good reason for taking such different disciplines. In other words, Areas of Expertise represent extremely focused training, such that it defines the character's profession, and you'd be unlikely to allow more than one such Area of Expertise. Which is exactly what I said. Those would be 6 Skill Points each; I only allowed 5 for the example. But if you spent them on either Science 4 (Particle Physics +2) or Science 4 (Anthropology +2), you're still only choosing one Area of Expertise, which was my point all along. Call it munchkinism or power gaming, the fact remains that you're being jipped if you choose two or more Areas of Expertise for one skill. Even the most theatrically minded gamer will hesitate at doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 2, 2010 21:18:55 GMT
What about making AOE an option that does not cost skill points? For example if you have a 3 in a skill, you get an AOE skill at a +1. If the skill is say 5, you get 2 AOE skills at a +1 each or 1 AOE at a +2 rating. You've gone back to removing the idea of an intense focus that defines your professional life in favor of a whole bunch of slight focuses across a lot of skills. You may as well develop a more complex and self-consistent skill system.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Mar 3, 2010 13:32:49 GMT
Hullo, Stormcrow, Here's the problem I have with what you did in the example above. While the Character Points are the same in both examples, I would say that if the character in the first example has two radically different areas of speciality (Particle Physics and Anthropology), I would have the character be somewhat older than 34 years of age, and have a whale of a good reason for taking such different disciplines. In other words, Areas of Expertise represent extremely focused training, such that it defines the character's profession, and you'd be unlikely to allow more than one such Area of Expertise. Which is exactly what I said. Not precisely. I'm saying that it's one thing to take Particle Physics and let's say Astrophysics as AoEs, it's another thing entirely to take two unrelated disciplines. (Reminds me of some of the hassles with the FASA game, but that's another matter entirely.) In that sense, yes, I would argue that the AoE does represent extremely focused training, but I don't think the game quite treats it as such. Those would be 6 Skill Points each; I only allowed 5 for the example. But if you spent them on either Science 4 (Particle Physics +2) or Science 4 (Anthropology +2), you're still only choosing one Area of Expertise, which was my point all along. Call it munchkinism or power gaming, the fact remains that you're being jipped if you choose two or more Areas of Expertise for one skill. Even the most theatrically minded gamer will hesitate at doing it. From a numbers and munchkin-y pov, yes. However, if one takes them because of how one sees the player character, that's another matter. Personally, I hate gamers who mini-max this way, but they're too common in these days of gaming.
|
|
|
Post by da professor on Mar 3, 2010 14:16:53 GMT
Call it munchkinism or power gaming, the fact remains that you're being jipped if you choose two or more Areas of Expertise for one skill. Even the most theatrically minded gamer will hesitate at doing it. That may be your experience, but I know many players who do this sort of thing all the time. It's just a matter of play style.
|
|
|
Post by dvalkyrie74 on Mar 4, 2010 1:08:04 GMT
John K.
I have played the game for several weeks now and from my point of view and many others find the game mechanics to be fun, but questionable or changeable in some areas. I have played a variety of games from the old D&D basic boxed set to the D6 Star Wars game to even percentile games like Top Secret or Palladium's collection. Perhaps my problem is I have played so many games and have enjoyed ideas from all kinds of game systems.
Please refrain from belittling me for my responses. I am not going to argue or start a flame war here with you, but I am only joining in the conversations of the forum like everyone else. I am only here to offer ideas and suggestions like everyone else. If that is wrong, why have a forum?
I am only agreeing with Curufea with his idea in the first posting of this forum on Area of Specialisation. I like his idea or perhaps something closer to it.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by omega on Mar 4, 2010 10:48:38 GMT
Gentlemen, please keep this nice.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Mar 4, 2010 15:44:14 GMT
Hullo, Mark, John K. I have played the game for several weeks now and from my point of view and many others find the game mechanics to be fun, but questionable or changeable in some areas. I have played a variety of games from the old D&D basic boxed set to the D6 Star Wars game to even percentile games like Top Secret or Palladium's collection. Perhaps my problem is I have played so many games and have enjoyed ideas from all kinds of game systems. All I will say here is that I asked the question, since I didn't know whether or not you had played or run DW: AiTaS to this point. I think that working with the game's mechanics, which are extremely rules lite, and whether one feels that they are questionable and need alterations/changes is likely a function of how many rules lite systems one has run before. It can be even tougher on players who aren't used to rules lite systems, as they continue to tend to think in terms of more crunchy systems that they have played and/or run before. Many times, in my experience, it takes adjusting one's outlook on the game and all. Please refrain from belittling me for my responses. I am not going to argue or start a flame war here with you, but I am only joining in the conversations of the forum like everyone else. I am only here to offer ideas and suggestions like everyone else. If that is wrong, why have a forum? I'm sorry you feel that I've been belittling you here. That was not my intention, and I apologise to you since you feel that way. I thought that we were having a relatively good discussion about the merits of Areas of Expertise and specialization, I'll stop getting involved in this thread, as I guess there's nothing more for me to say or add here. Again, sorry that you felt I was belittling you.
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Mar 4, 2010 15:54:25 GMT
Hullo, Omega, Gentlemen, please keep this nice. Yes, sir, Mr. Moderator.
|
|
|
Post by burningskies on May 19, 2010 19:29:30 GMT
If you really want to fine-tune skills, try the following. First, don't account for it with skill points. Instead, choose an "area of specialization" to have a +1 bonus, then choose an "area of weakness" to have a −1 bonus. For every specialization you choose, you must take a weakness too. You can choose as many "area pairs" as you like, but you may not raise the bonus/penalty more than ±1. You may still use the rules for areas of expertise alongside this, but you may not specialize in or have a weakness in your area of expertise. The GM must, of course, make sure that each specialization and weakness are approximately equal in utility. No fair specializing in Fighting (Kickboxing) and having a weakness in Fighting (Sumo Wrestling)! Hi guys, I'm sorry to resurrect this thread, if it's a dead one, but when rereading some of the discussion here, I thought Stormcrow had an interesting idea about allowing for an area of strength with concomitant area of weakness. Regarding the example you mentioned above (kickboxing/sumo) - those seem really specific, but could be made into something a little more general - such as striking vs. grappling. People do develop skills in certain weapons or techniques over others. Most people who would have this type of skill probably have a favored type of range (if unarmed - striking, grappling, etc.) or favored weapon (sword, staff, etc.) The area of strength (or whatever it's called) would receive a +1, the area of weakness (which would have to be equal to it in scope) would receive a -1. It might add an undesirable level of complexity to a game. For others, it might allow for a further chance to make your PCs unique. I'd be curious what other people's take on this would be. It would seem workable. I still haven't begun my campaign yet, so I don't have experience one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on May 25, 2010 16:41:45 GMT
For what its worth I allow the +2 Areas of Expertise as long as they have at least 1 point in the base skill. This made it MUCH easier to convert our FASA characters to the new system as they often had high ratings in one science skill but next to nothing in all the others. It also made the characters cheeper to create (point-wise) so they weren't so far beyond a beginning characters in the new system. - Marnal Gate "I was told by the producer that the guiding principle was to make the scripts complex enough to keep the Kids interested and simple enough for the Adults to understand!" -Douglas Adams on writing Doctor Who For Everything about the TARDIS check out www.whoniverse.net/tardis/ For all things Gallifreyan check out meshyfish.com/~roo/index.html
|
|