 skill grouping, another thread |
  |
 Jul 6 2006, 04:46 PM
Post
#126
|
|
|
Immortal Elf  Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670  |
same thing that's obnoxious about the way blakkie posts. you both use this sophomorically indulgent tone, as if you're humoring whoever it is you're talking to. when i call someone an idiot to their face, at least they don't think that i think they're too dim to understand what i mean.
|
 |
 
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 04:51 PM
Post
#127
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Point taken. Thanks.
While I sometimes intend for it to come across that way, I don't always. A lot of the time I'm just trying to explain something that I failed to explain the first time around so I dumb it down. Not because I think the person I'm explaining it to is dumb, but because I know I can tend to complicate my explanations by rambling on or using poor phrasing. Which is probably what I just did. :) |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:01 PM
Post
#128
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
For all you dumpshockers following along at home, I am answering James' question, but I'm moving to PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:21 PM
Post
#129
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Booooo! Taking private conversation out of public threads is unsporting! ;)
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:29 PM
Post
#130
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
If Moon-Hawk doesn't mind I don't mind posting it here. He (she?) was a bit more blunt than normal.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:31 PM
Post
#131
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Hahaha. I almost posted it here; I was planning on making a quick little post. But once I had it all typed in I realized it had gotten long.
If James wants to share what I said I'm certainly happy with everyone seeing it, but I'm going to leave that up to him. It was similar to mfb's, but in much more detail. So anyway, how 'bout that topic? What the deuce were we talking about, anyway? Oh yeah, skills. I like, um, skills. My solution to the problem of the pistol-godling who doesn't know how to hold the rifle is just that if someone wants to build a character like that, they should probably have a reason for it in their backstory, otherwise I'd like to see them take the group at 1 or 2. Figure out what abilities your character should have, and build that. I allow most of the house-ruled group splitting and recombining that people mention. Yes, the rules let you make some odd combinations, but they also let you make something more reasonable. Just make the reasonable one. Of course, I realize my solution only works with GM supervision, isn't a solid "rule", and would mean bupkis in any tournament setting. Oh well. edit: Go ahead and post it. I hope I wasn't too blunt. Oh, and I'm definitely a "he". |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:36 PM
Post
#132
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
My reply was basically that I intend to be rude, insulting, and condescending but only to certain people who I feel also act that way and hence deserve to get a return volley every so often, and that while I try and differentiate my sarcasm and jokes with smileys I'm sure I fail at times. At other boards (I used rpol.net and starfleetgames.com as examples) I have a much different persona (the kinder, gentler James) because that's the tone of those boards, and I'm a GM at rpol and don't want to seem like a tyrant. Dumpshock's "no holds barred" tone comes across in my posts, apparently even more than I intend it to. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:39 PM
Post
#133
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Skills: I generally buy what I think the character should have, which is why I prefer group systems to a single skill system. It isn't that I don't roleplay, just that I like to have rules that support my choices rather than just personal or GM instilled limitations.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:44 PM
Post
#134
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Certainly, having a rule that supports realistic choices is the best solution, but given the complexities of skill crossover, I don't think a satisfying rule will ever come up. I think the best solution is to just keep doing what you've been doing and pick the skills that you know would be most appropriate. And if people abuse that lack of a rule and make more munchkiny or less realistic characters, I think you just have to shrug it off, 'cause they're not getting away with all that much anyway. A solid rule would be better, but I just don't see that happening. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:54 PM
Post
#135
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
my issues with the "buy what's reasonable" approach are two-fold: one, the whole thing where you're depending on RPGers to be reasonable; two, the part where buying all the reasonable stuff gets to be really, really expensive. you could just give out more skill points, i guess, but that requires even more reasonableness on the part of the RPGers.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:57 PM
Post
#136
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I think reasonableness is a group specific thing. While it isn't realistic, some groups may feel it's perfectly reasonable to have a character who is good with rifles but not shotguns. Others differ. In those groups that find it to be reasonable, they put their points exactly where they want them and to hell witht he rest. In the rest, they can either put points elsewhere, give freebie points to put elsewhere, or figure out a house rule whereby points in one category roll over into others.
SR kinda allows for that by having skill groups, but still falls a bit short. SR1 and 2 with the skill web came a lot closer, but was too complex for too little benefit. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:58 PM
Post
#137
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Hmmm, those groups do get expensive quickly. That's a good point.
Aren't there any rules for defaulting between groups? Even if it's something harsh like -4dice. That still gives the pistol god something when he picks up a machine pistol or rifle. Of course, that would invalidate someone's expensive paid-for group if it's four points below their specialization. I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 06:01 PM
Post
#138
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
There aren't in SR4. That's what the skill web used to do. A small skill-webbish approach could be taken in SR4 to increase the realism. The more complex you make it the better you'll be able to model reality, but at some point you'll start to suffer from diminishing returns. Where that point is depends on the group.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 06:25 PM
Post
#139
|
|||||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Engineering and Interests. Both are direct examples. Also, Journalism is the skill used to actually write things intelligably for publication.
In both cases, it's far better to not have the issue come up at all. You're saying: "The delay isn't so bad that we can't live with it", while I'm saying that it's still a significant delay, and it's still bad enough.
No one here has suggested that a boxer is invincible in a street fight, only that he's got advantages. No one here has suggested that a combat-trained fighter wouldn't demolish a boxer in a street fight. And most of all, no one other than you has suggested that sport fighting = general fighting ability.
Did you *read* what I posted?
The exact solution is going to depend on the system. Basically, broader groupings have certain advantages: they're better (but still not perfect) at demonstrating general proficiencies, easier to handle in bookkeeping and play, and run much faster. The advantages of a specific system include percieved realism (whish is debateable) and more fine control. In my experience, the more fine control you offer, the more openings for munchkinism you have. The classic example from GURPS was someone trying to buy the "missing one hand" disadvantage one finger at a time, to get more points. Generalized systems tend to not lend themselves to this nearly as readily. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jul 6 2006, 06:40 PM
Post
#140
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
SR4's knowledge skills apply to knowing things, not doing things. You can of course feel free to rule otherwise, but you're adding something that isn't in the book.
I'm not saying that it adds so little time it isn't a problem, I'm saying that it doesn't add time at all. It's really easy to ask a rules question while other things are happening, and so overlap the time required for the question with other things that progress the game. It requires a little thinking ahead, and is certainly not foolproof, but it works perfectly fine in all the situations I can remember using it for. YMMV Your reply to the George / Bob example said that George doesn't shoot as well with his rifle and that Bob has archery edges. The original example said neither of those. In the original example Bob and George both spend the exact same amounts of points on their shooting skill. One has never picked up a bow and the other has. Neither has any edges or flaws pertaining to weaponry. You're right in that generalized systems aren't as open to abuse, but that doesn't make them better, especially if you're in a group that doesn't tend to abuse loopholes. That, among other things, makes them better in your opinion, which is fine. Heck, I only really have two issues with you in this area: 1) Completely generalized skills require GM supervision or player limitations to ensure that things like the George / Bob situation don't occur. A few examples have been given, and questions asked: In response to the first one by me you replied by saying that it was logical for my character to have experience with bows and blowguns. When I changed the example to a character who had never heard of bows or blowguns you never responded. In response to the most recent Bpb / George example your response gave one character edges that the example didn't have, and postulated the existence of other edges for the other character, which he also did not have. My problem is that I've yet to see a response that answers the question given without adding more to the character in the example. 2) You tend to speak from a position where your opinion is right and other opinions are wrong. I don't feel like digging up the post, but you even said as much in a previous discussion. If you'd like to see the quote I'll find it for you. My problem with that stems from the knowledge that it isn't "Cain's way is best." Instead it's "what is fun for you and your friends is best." |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 11:21 PM
Post
#141
|
|||||||||||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
It's just as easy to look something up in a book as other things are happening; but that's what we're trying to avoid. Having to ask another person takes two people out of the game for a bit, instead of one. It's even worse when it's the GM who has to ask; if a player disagrees, the books start coming out.
Not correct:
So, Bob has a specialization in his standard-issue M16. George is kinda up in the air, but there's a definite implication that he's trained heavily enough to be specialized in bows. These differences can come out with the same base skill, plus a specialization in the appropriate weapon.
Generalized systems are more abuse-resistant, although nothing is purely abuse-proof. And while YMMV on many things, abuse-resistance is always a plus when objectively prioritizing game systems. Generalized systems also have less "bean-counting", to use your term, and tend to run much faster and smoother. Detailed systems have a higher amount of percieved realism, although the amount of actual realistic modeling is debateable. They also offer a higher degree of fine control: you can do a lot more tweaking and fiddling. Properly done, neither is better than the other, but both lend themselves to certain styles of play. A tactically focused game, where detail and precision is important, will favor the detailed systems. A freeform game, with emphasis on player interactions and roleplay, will favor the general system. Both Savage Worlds and Shadowrun fall on the tactical side of the spectrum, although admittedly Shadowrun is much further up that side than SW.
Actually, I did, but it probably got lost due to the way I post. Basically, if someone's never even heard of blowguns and bows, yet they're a core part of the setting weapons, then they've got no right to have a high Shooting skill in the first place. If they're extremely rare or nonexistant, then there's no problem at all; the weapons just never come up, or can be clearly stated to not be appropriate to the setting. Remember, the Drive skill in SW covers hovercars, chariots, and station wagons all at once; however, it expressly limits the scope to only the vehicles appropriate to the setting.
The quote was something like this: "No kidding I think my opinion is right; if I thought it was wrong, why would I have it?" ;) Seriously, I know I'm an opinionated bastard who loves a good argument. However, I never go for the outright flames and/or trolls. Backhanded insults and condescenscion, I'll confess to, but that's generally after I've already been attacked. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jul 7 2006, 12:42 AM
Post
#142
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Sorry, I misremembered the original question, so allow me to rephrase it in the hopes of finally getting an answer tot he question I've been trying to ask, but apparently failing at. 1) Bob the Example PC: military veteran. He's had broad-based training in a lot of different types of firearms, and real-world combat experience to back it up. He's is a pretty good with pretty much any type of firearm. 2) George the example PC: Bob's good buddy. He's had broad-based training in a lot of different types of firearms, and real-world combat experience to back it up. He's is a pretty good with pretty much any type of firearm. He's also had some experience bow hunting, and is a pretty good shot with a bow, albeit not noticably better than he is with a firearm. Overall both Bob and George are at the same skill level with the weapons they are familiar with. To return to the original Bob/George questions: Bob gets caught in the department store and grabs a bow. Can Bob pick up one of those bows and a fistful of arrows and start picking off Bad Guys just like he did with the 50 on the Hummer back in Baghdad? Now, if George gets cornered in the sporting goods section of that department store, can he grab one of those bows and start picking off Bad Guys?
I'm incredibly curious about this, and it's partly my inability to ask the question in a way that you'll answer what I mean to ask that has contributed to the length and vinegar of this thread. I just noticed this:
In the situation above Bows are far from being a core part of the setting's weapons, but neither are they nonexistent. It isn't common to meet someone with bow skills (at least not outside of Renfair circles). There are certainly a lot more people that own guns then own bows, but they aren't archaic or alien technology. Are they so different that George would have an entirely different Shooting Skill to cover them? Or perhaps SW already has a core (i.e. not setting specific) rule in place for picking up weapons from outside the typical weapons from your technology level? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 21 2006, 07:17 AM
Post
#143
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Savage Worlds does presume that the skill covers all "typical" items covered under that skill. So, if you're from the year 3500, your shooting skill will cover all kinds of hand blasters easily, and probably will cover slugthrowers. However, if you get handed a Colt 45 dragoon, you're going to have serious issues since it's not "typical". (IIRC, a Colt Dragoon is a black powder revolver.) Savage Worlds being a generic system, the GM has to decide what weapons are classified as "typical" and what aren't, based on the setting he's trying to create. Using the previous example, black powder weapons are hardly archaic or alien, but they might not be classified as "typical" in some settings. Even in the late 1800s, when cartridge weapons were becoming more commonplace, the black powder guns saw a lot of use. So, a GM might say that a modern-day gun user can't use his Shooting skill to full effect with a black powder gun, if he's focused on a setting where it might not be so commonplace. On the other hand, a GM might also say that the Colt Dragoons are common enough that someone in an early-mid 1900s game-- a late cowboy era, or a pulp-action game-- has more than enough familiarilty with it. Generally speaking, it'll never come up in a game. If you don't want George or Bob to pick up a bow and start doing the William Tell thing in a sporting goods store, just put a case of hunting rifles up next to the bows. Even if they technically have similar proficiencies, the natural tendency of a good player will be to stick with his character's preferred fighting style. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 21 2006, 04:04 PM
Post
#144
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
So your answer is "don't let the situation come up?" I can dig it. Not an answer I would want to give my players in a game, but different styles for different folks and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 21 2006, 06:09 PM
Post
#145
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I searched the last four pages for "black" and turned up nothing about black powder weapons. Which previous example are you referring to? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 21 2006, 06:19 PM
Post
#146
|
|||||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
One sentence before the quote. edit: That's not supposed to be snarky or snide. I'm just trying to keep things moving. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 21 2006, 06:49 PM
Post
#147
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ah, for some readon I thought it was tied to an example by someone else. Doh!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 04:17 AM
Post
#148
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Not even that; when you have good players, you won't really have to worry about them twisting their weapon abilities all out of proportion. Like I said: you've got your two guys, with a high Shooting skill, in a department store. They're looking for weapons, and you as a GM put what you reasonably think would be there. If you don't want them to use bows with their shooting skill, then just put a set of hunting rifles right next to the case of bows. I promise you, unless you've got problem players, they'll automatically go for whichever weapon best fits their character. If they've got a William Tell type, they'll take the bows; if they're gun-bunnies, they'll ignore the bows and go for the guns. Or, let's take a medieval fantasy game. Your players are unarmed, and turned loose in a gladitorial arena full of weapons that they can grab. The greatclub-swinging barbarian is going to ignore all the knives and daggers and sharp objects, and go for the biggest blunt object he can lay hands on. The germanic knight is going to pass on the short swords and daggeers, and instead pick up the greatsword or bastard sword. The swashbuckler will ignore the bastard sword, and pick up the first rapier he can find. And so on. Players will automatically pick up weapons that fit their character concepts, and ignore the ones that don't mesh. Even in SR3, you just don't see players loading up on certain things. If they've got Edged weapons, the sam with a katana is going to try and stick with a katana. If you offer him a choice between a laser cresent axe and a katana, he's going to pick the katana every time. I just ran a Wushu game, where there are no weapon proficiencies at all. The kung-fu guys didn't once pick up a SMG from a fallen mook, and the gun-bunnies didn't go for the sharp blades. And that's in a totally wide-open system, with no skill groupings worth mentioning. In a more regimented system, it's even less of a problem. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 04:51 AM
Post
#149
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
So your gun-toting players should never enter an archery range?
Any problem can be patched with enough player restraint. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 01:41 PM
Post
#150
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Assuming equal skills, I'd probably go for the bow because the arrows will be more accessible. The bullets to the guns are usually not near the guns, and locked up.
Also, you keep saying "if you don't want." What if we do want them to use whatever weapons they feel comfortable with? The questions were not about "what should the GM allow?" They were about the disparities inherent in the system. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd April 2025 - 08:05 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.