Skill Group Frustration Options

[Fastball]

I was wondering if anybody else finds skill groups a hindrance to the development of realistic characters, and what solutions are being used. Here's some examples:

1. Athletics Group
It is extremely plausible for a person to be a great athlete who enjoys running, jumping, and climbing, but has never learned to swim. Yet a character who wanted rating 0 swimming and rating 4 for everything else would have to pay more for less.

2. Close Combat
I like this group. While you might find a martial arts, that can't use a sword, most professional level blade-fighters will have some proficiency with unarmed combat or clubs. On the other hand, a martial artist/stave specialist might want Unarmed 4, Blades 2, Clubs 2 (staves) and would almost always opt for Close Combat 4 instead, at a mere cost of 6 more BPs.

3. Electronics
A software programmer probably knows how to work a computer and run a data search, but may not know how to build and create hardware.

4. Influence
Just one complaint: a sleazy used care dealer does not deserve leadership.

5. Stealth
The ability to blend in with the background (Disguise) can be essential for infiltration and shadowing. And then there is palming, also known as the free skill you get just for playing the game.

6. Outdoors Group
Some back-to-nature treehugger might be very good at surviving in the wilderness and tracking, but can't navigate a city because s/he has never learned to read a map. The characther would want Navigation 2 (Forest), Survival 4, Tracking 4, and would have to pay an extra 2 BP, for again, less skill.

It also perplexes me that you can have Navigation (Forest), Survival (Forest), and Tracking (Forest), but not Outdoors (Forest).

I realize some of this could be solved simply by a player foregoing the use of one of the skills (like swimming), but that really doesn't seem like the best way.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Fastball]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Chunky_Salsa]

Come on you guys, didn't you know one of SR4's biggest selling points was to simplify the game?

;)

Kinda like the dodge rules...

I can see both your points.

I think skill groups are kinda the quick and easy way to gen a character and is just backed by "do this the easy way and we'll make it cheaper". It's a good way to get beginners playing the game.

If you're not a beginner, screw it, pay extra to flesh out your chars skills in a more realistic way. Your a veteran, you're gonna get karma and not die (right?).

Or if you're hardcore, just make up some house rule about skill points or give everyone that doesn't take a skill group 12 extra points or something.

Just realize that SR4 was designed this way, basically to dummy a lot of things down, and that means more cookie cutter things, like skill groups.

[hyzmarca]

There is a solution, but you may not like it. BYO skill groups.There are two types of skill groups, Four skill groups and Three skill groups. So, what you do is you assign skills in the Three groups a value of 3 1/3BP while assigning the Four skills a value of 2 1/2 BP. Non group skills retain a value of 4 BP.

To recap
Skills in Four groups have a Group Value of 2.5BP
Skills in Three groups have a Group Value of 3.3 BP
Skills without a group have a Group Value of 4 BP

At the GMs digression, a player may create a custom skill group so long as the total Group Value of the combined skills is not greater than 10.

Obviously, if a skill is in a custom group then the character cannot possess the standard skill group that it normally resides in.

The cost is pretty much the same. It does provide a bit more flexibility to character creation.

[lorechaser]

That's a pretty spiffy idea, Hyz. Have you tested it out?

My only concern is the "skills not in a group" group. But I don't have a specific concern, just a general "That could be bad" feeling....

[Thanee]

You could also just remove Skill Groups and instead give a discount on BP (and possibly Karma) if you have a certain number of ranks in at least 3 skills from a specific group. That would also allow for mixed ranks within the group.

Bye
Thanee

[Demerzel]

[deek]

I guess what I have to say to the OP is that if a skill group doesn't fit your realistic character, don't use it. I know there is a discount for buying skills in a group, but it is not "that" big a discount in BP or Karma, is it?

Skill groups are a nice way to start out a character, but if you take a look at training them up after creation...1 month is pretty brutal and all of my players have basically just broken the skill groups to raise specific skills then try to advance them all together.

[Dentris]

The karma cost is also crippling. It is often cheaper to raise an attribute (which is likely link to many of the skills on the skill group and many others) than a skill group.

[ornot]

yes... but in the same circumstances it is also more expensive to raise a bunch of skills independently than it is to raise the attribute.

If you don't like skill groups, don't use them. You're not forced to.

[Zolhex]

I can't say I have any problems with the skill groups that exist they have thier uses.

What I don't get is that fighter, magicial, and hacker types all got what is it 2 skill groups for them to use that cover most of the skills they need.

However riggers get mechanics skill group and that's it no pilot skill group.

It is my opinion riggers got screwed because to me a rigger should be able to pilot on land, sea, and air as well as control drones.

Rigger Skill Group:
Pilot Aircraft
Pilot Anthroform
Pilot Groundcraft
Pilot Watercraft

Yes I know it's my game I can do what I want although I also run the offical Shadowrun Missions which are by the book games.

I just think they drooed the ball on riggers and skill groups other than that like I said most skill groups work but then again I like building characters with lots of skills.

[Dread Polack]

Other than calling it the "Piloting Skill Group" (none of the other groups are tied to an archetype), I really like the idea. My gaming group has pointed out the lack of such a skill group, and I think it's as appropriate as the others.

My take on skill groups in general is that they often go together, and give characters an opportunity to save some points on a pile of skills they know they need (like the summoning group for most mages), or to encourage rounding out your skill list by getting a practically-free skill (like atheletics, where don't see yourself doing a lot of swimming). They don't always go together, and they don't alway have "synergy" with one another, but it's useful and I like it.

Dread Polack

[Jack Kain]

Lets take a look at the Firearms group to get a firearms of 4 costs 40BP to get all 3 skills to 4 with BP costs 48 BP, its not a super discount but that extra 8 BP.

Now this group makes perfect sense you trained will all kinds of firearms except for heavy weapons.

The Savings on say the Electronics group of 4 (as opposed to all 4 skills at 4 individually is 24 BP!)


The navigation complaint is not relevant to a skill group debate. The city vs wilderness exits when the skill is taken alone.


The Athletics Group DOES make sense, if you take full course of athletic training that will include swiming. (if it does not include swiming it IS NOT a full course of athletic training.
Climbing, Gymnastics, Running and Swimming are all athletic skills.\

If you want a guy with out that one skill in swimming then remove hit because it makes sense for him.

I don't think leadership should be a part of the influence group. The skill has no actually use that I can find.
I think the influence group for a good sleazy car dealer(by good I mean he successful) should be
Con (obviously)
Etiquette, a good con artist has to be able to fit into the targets crowed and not be out of place thats all Etiquette does,
Negotiation (obviously)
Intimidate, to scare you out of buying the cheap car and instead buy the new expensive one.

The Stealth group, makes perfect sense, its the Ninja group.
You disguise yourself, hide in the shadows or trail your target with out being seen. Then of course you hide weapons on your person when entering the club.

A programmer might not have hardware, he can't build new chips but a computer engineer would very well have all 4 skills.


If you want an athletic character with say climbing, gymnastics and running but not swimming then well remove that skill from the group for him

[Jaid]

[laughingowl]

Personally the only reason I dont like skill groups.



100 points should equal 100 points.


100 points spent via X equals 120 points spend via Y, is a problem to me. It often penalizes 'role-players' and rewards math majors and min/maxxers (who often will have at least an honoary math degree :-)

[ElFenrir]

Sometimes its worth a bit of thought on what you want to spend the points on-groups or seperate skills.

Its pretty much known that you get bigger 'savings' purchasing a 4 group rather than a 3 group. (4 skills at 4=64 BP. 3 skills at 4=48 BP. 8 points vs. 24 points is very significant, as pointed out.)

I personally havn't used skill groups a whole lot. I think i had a weapons specialist with the Firearms group and Stealth, and a few others. Typically, i find myself taking one tops. Reason? As mentioned, sometimes you want to build a character with a certain feel to them and dont need the entire group. One fellow i had had big unarmed combat, but while i saw him maybe handling a pocketknife or his mace(pure visual effect), they weren't high enough to warrant a 4 in the group, and i wanted the unarmed higher.

Im also a believer in that theyre good for beginners, or simply someone who wants a real generalist.

Thing is about groups, from what ive seen, they tend NOT to be taken by the people who can use them most. A Face, for example, has Influence-but It's much much more valuable to blow the extra BP and have 5's, 4's,(or a 6 even) with specializations in things like Etiquette, Con, and Negotations than it is a general 4. Covert Ops would probably feel alot better with the 5 or 6 sitting in Infiltration or Disguise. The sharpshooter might well rather have his pistols and longarms at 5, again with specializations, rather than the non specialized 4's.

Yep, seems to be a more generalist road to take overall. I don't have the problem per se, as they are optional and do come in handy.

[laughingowl]

Ohh as to 'grouping' they can totally make since, but the cost difference can be significant, which gives an unfair balance to those that: 1) Dont worry about 'in character' or 2) Make a concept designed to fit a min/max mold.


Hmm: Wonder if just modifying it so you can not 'break' a group. The 'discount' overall is at the expense of being a generalist and giving up the option to specilize (either actual speciality for a skill, and/or just the later option to break group and raise a skill).

While it would add house-keeping rules I probably would allow 'breaking' but require the cost difference of the skill to be paid.


So 'group' skills get you overall more skill for less. But require:

1) Large points to bump (can't partially bump)
2) Give up the option to choose a speciality.


'Skills' cost more then groups, but you get the option to get +2 dice cheaply (speciality) and can raise them one at a time, for overall less.

[Anymage]

The problem with a "400 BP is 400 BP" attitude is that karma costs blow that attitude out of the water. The karma rules reward spending your BP as a specialist rather than a generalist, I don't see much of a drawback to countering that trend with skill groups. Beyond thatmost skill groups include skills that any good min-maxer would see as a waste of points, and/or aren't much good for a boom-boom style of play. Simplifying builds and lowering costs for players who want a more generalist style doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

The only other complaint I see is with the four-part skill groups. Which again include elements that would otherwise be undervalued for PC's. (Do you really think swimming or gymnastics would be sought-after skills if they had to be bought individually?) The only other rationale against them is that it's cheaper to buy all four than it is to buy three individually, in which case I have a hard time thinking of a GM who'd force you to ever use the unwanted skill. Given that most 'runners who cared enough about a skill group to have more than a rank in it would want to project competence in the skill as a whole, though, I don't see this being a real problem anyone would come across.

[Demerzel]

Some folks are pretty big believers in the Gymnastics skill.

Like in this thread:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...=13762&hl=flips

and this one:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...pic=13375&st=25

[toturi]

[Catharz Godfoot]

[Glyph]

Skill groups aren't a hindrance to creating realistic characters. They are a good "package deal" for characters such as deckers or faces who use a wide range of similar skills. More nuanced characters can buy the skills individually. So they are only a hindrance if you fret about paying more to create your custom-crafted character.

But that's how it should be when you start looking at the character as more than a pile of numbers. When you move beyond pure min-maxing, you will find yourself making a character that is less effective in certain areas, because it fits that character's background.

[Wraithshadow]

Just to approach this from another angle, the question seems to be one of, "I want my character to be terrible at this one thing."

Well- how important is that? Personally when I make a character, I'll often find myself thinking that I'd like a lot of different bits, but in the end I have to decide what's really necessary, what's not, and thus filter it all down. Do I really need this? Or can I ignore it for a while? What about this, is it integral to the character? Can I pick it up later and be alright?

By that criteria, where do these skills factor into your ideas? Is it absolutely necessary that your character be unable to swim? Lost when it comes to hardware? A really poor leader?

If the answer to any of these is 'yes,' then you have two possibilities. The first is to find a way to get those extra few BP to afford the individual skills that you want, while making sure that one necessary zero stays in place. The other is simply go to your GM and say, "Hey- I want to put 30 points into Athletics, but I want to drop Swimming to zero. Is it okay if I just remove it from the skill group and pay the same price?"

I know very few GMs who would object to letting you reduce your character's abilities for no gain elsewhere.