Age and Skill Level, is there any good way to determine? Options

[ElFenrir]

Well, we've all seen it...18 year olds with craploads of pretty high skills. I mean, kind of hard to explain somewhat. It's not the 'real world', its a game, and characters SHOULD be able to do more than the average joe in our real world, but i suppose SOME kind of explanation should be given.

On the other hand, surely not every 6 or even 7 belongs only to old geezers. There might be some old geezers who don't even have over a 3 in skills.

How do you guys handle this?

Ive made characters running from 18 to 50, and they all had varied skill ratings. Ive had 25 year olds with a 6, but a 48 year old with multiple 4's. Do you think any of this is right, or wrong?

It's easy to explain the older blood who has alot of more moderate skills; they simply spread themselves out over their years. But what about giving a younger guard one or two bleeding edge skills; do you find this believable? I mean, take a fighting skill. Surely if you take a kid and stick him in a martial art when he's 6 years old, and have him train his ass off til he's 24, that 18 years has to probably amount to a scary skill. Or non combat: take that little kid and start drilling them in computers. 18 years of computer experience is going to have a pretty damn crazy computer kid. (And we all hear on the news about those odd 13 year olds...while some are just script kiddies, some indeed have hacked the government. And usually get hired as soon as they are working age.)

What's it like in your world? Do you as GMs limit skill ratings by age, play it as a roleplaying game rather than real life and allow a person to at least come up with a reason their 25 year old has a 7? Or hell, a 48 year old with 15+ skills at rating 4(hey, they can dump a crapload of skill points in), that's a LOT of veteran skills even for someone older.

I was just wondering some consensus here. Personally, im the GM that'll let the player explain it to me, and work with them, if they want a prodigy(7 skill lets say) at something at the age of 21 then i don't really have a problem with it if they give me a decent little story. (Now, a 21 year old with a 7, 3 skill groups at 4, 4 more skills at 4 and a few 3's i might need some real good explaining.)

[ArkonC]

I used to know a guy who spoke 37 languages fluently...
He died at age 24...
Anything is possible... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Synner667]

This came up in conversation a few days ago..
..But from a different angle.

Games like GURPS limit the amount of points you can put into skills, based on your age.
Others limit the number of points you can put into your professional skills [weapons for a soldier, etc], with the remainder in more background/day-to-day skills.
Games like Traveller generate your character in blocks of time, allocating skill points at each block.


We were trying to work out a way for people to age in blocks, allocating points at each step, to try and have characters develop over time - rather than being born fully skilled.

[Slymoon]

Keep in mind many if not most of your Olympic athletes and Professional ball players are in their 20's.
Tiger Woods was in his 20's when he started stomping professional ass, iirc.

When a 24-year old Marine sharpshooter named Carlos Norman Hathcock II chalked up the farthest recorded kill in the history of sniping - 2,500 yards (1.42 miles, a distance greater than 22 football fields) in February 1967 he fired a Browning M2 .50 Cal. Machine Gun.

Keep in mind in many physical activities, mid 20's is the prime age, wher a person can reach their maximum potential.

To me it is all about character background. Write no background or a crappy one and I am less likely to let you sit on that 6 skill.

[ElFenrir]

You know, thinking of modern sports people is an interesting thought; and i do agree with you on the background. I mean, as a GM id allow about anything if you give me a good and/or entertaining enough reason for it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


But true on those sports folks...Tiger was beating guys more than twice his age and if you're playing sports these days into your 30s your considered ''getting ready for retirement'.

That's a pretty crazy sniper story, too. It's hard to picture how long that really is, i mean a mile and a half is easy to walk but sheesh, hitting something?

Well, there is always just simple natural talent as well as good training. You do hear the odd stories about those sports dudes that just sorta come up from nowhere and are just good from high school practice.

[Tarantula]

Sniper? He was using a MACHINE GUN! I didn't see that it said he shot only 1 bullet anywhere in that.

[Larme]

I'd say that there shouldn't be any correlation between age and skill. Of course, commonly younger people don't have as high of skills because they haven't been practicing as long. But Shadowrun characters don't have to be common people. They could be one in a million types, who had a 7 by age 7. You should let them do what they want so long as it's part of a decent character concept. Telling people they can't play the character they want just because someone of age x can't have skill y is an example of really pointless GM intervention. The GM should intervene to prevent un-fun things from happening. Telling people their characters are too young based on an arbitrary notion of ordinary skill levels is not an example of that. Unless the player wants to do something stupid that would harm the fun of other people. There have to be limits, but they should be obvious limits, and they should be flexible to accommodate a player's legitimate wishes for their characters. One of the must fun-killing things I've ever experienced, however, is GMs taking issue with nitpicky details of my character, picking on their age, skill level, background, stats, because one thing or another isn't quite right, until it really isn't my character anymore. That should be avoided.

[Whipstitch]

Sniper? He was using a MACHINE GUN! I didn't see that it said he shot only 1 bullet anywhere in that.

Tarantula, why do you think there's .50 cal sniper rifles around today? They're purpose-built bolt-action rifles using calibers previously only used in machine guns. Hathcock only took the one shot, far as I know. Back in Vietnam he got a hold of a Browning M2 machine gun, set it to semi-automatic fire and bracketed on a scope meant for a .30-6. Turned out to have twice the range of his rifle, and he's actually often credited as the inspiration for the previously mentioned purpose built sniper rifles now around today.

Frankly, if a GM started giving me crap about my skills I'd probably just end up saying "Fine. I guess I'm 30" or go home unless he had some previously mentioned theme or power level planned out.

[Slymoon]

Sniper? He was using a MACHINE GUN! I didn't see that it said he shot only 1 bullet anywhere in that.

Hathcock generally used the standard sniper rifle: The Winchester Model 70 .30-06 caliber rifle with the standard Unertl scope. On some occasions, however, he used a different weapon: the .50-caliber M2 Browning Machine Gun, on which he mounted the Unertl scope, using a bracket of his own design. This weapon was accurate to 2500 yards when fired one round at a time. At one point, he took careful aim at a courier carrying a load of assault rifles and ammunition on a bicycle. He had second thoughts when he saw a 12-year-old boy in his sights, but after considering the intended use of those weapons, he fired, hitting the bicycle frame. The boy tumbled over the handlebars and grabbed a gun, so Hathcock killed him. (Source Marine Sniper, Chapter 1.)

You should read the book, fairly good, and there is plenty of backup information to satisfy if you really don't believe it.
As I recall the M2 was modified to fire 1 round at a time.

Yeah and as Whipstitch mentioned, this was the inspiration to the 50 cal sniper rifles of today.

[Tarantula]

Sorry, I just read that he had used a machine gun, which to me, conjured the image of him holding down the trigger and watching the tracer rounds fall till it hit the guy.

[Kyleigh Wester]

We haven't ever really discusses this as a group but I think we all have the general belief that in the field of Shadowrunning you NEED these 6 or 7 skills to survive. How often do you see cooking and mowing grass on a characters sheet? Shadowrunners don't do these normal things, they live on the edge and get shot at in everyday life. Even in stealth and decking campaigns these people NEED these abilities and, in this field of work, I believe these skills would build quickly. An older Runner would definitely have higher skills, but with an older character you have to wonder, just how long has he been running the Shadows? A 19 year old who's been Shadowrunning since he was 9 would have to have lived a badass life, whilst a 30 year old who goes to shooting ranges everyday wouldn't touch him.

In the end, it comes down to the life the Shadowrunner lives I believe. Everybody has a skill they've picked up at a young age. I'm a tech person and a writer dude, but I also know beautiful artists and brilliant chefs who bloom at young ages. Same for a Shadowrunner, but with shooting stuff.

(On a side note, if a character is under 16 he gets penalties at character creation in our group.)

[Synner667]

Well, considering that you're allowed to only start with one skill at rating 6, or two skills at rating 5..
..And that rating 6 is meant to be the best-of-the-best, most people should be starting with skills in the 3-4 range.

Considering how much training someone needs to be an Athletics star, people shouldn't really have more than a few [probably related] skills in the rating 5 range.

Except that people build their characters fully formed, with little regard to how they got there..
..Which leads to training.


Should Characters have to expend Karma to maintain their high skills ??
Professionals with high degrees of skill need to do lots of training to maintain their edge - 4+ hours a day for Athletes, regular courses for Techies, lots of socialising to maintain contacts, lots of maintenance for technical gear, etc.


Thoughts ??

[Critias]

When discussing rules and math in an RPG, my thoughts are quite like my opinions when discussing a government's hand in the day to day affairs of it's citizens; when in doubt, less is better.

[ElFenrir]

The GM should intervene to prevent un-fun things from happening. Telling people their characters are too young based on an arbitrary notion of ordinary skill levels is not an example of that. Unless the player wants to do something stupid that would harm the fun of other people. There have to be limits, but they should be obvious limits, and they should be flexible to accommodate a player's legitimate wishes for their characters. One of the must fun-killing things I've ever experienced, however, is GMs taking issue with nitpicky details of my character, picking on their age, skill level, background, stats, because one thing or another isn't quite right, until it really isn't my character anymore. That should be avoided.

Honestly, i do take your side here. I mean, again, ill raise a question if there ar ejust insanse numbers of high skills...but then again, i might question a 30 year old if they spend 270 BPs on skills alone. But again, just give me a little background and that's it.

Ive actually been questioned and shot down a bit before in the past for playing someone with a too high skill at a young age. Not with our group of course, but it's happened. I was never a fan of it. I see some folks here tend to share the sentiment that 'if it make sense, run with it'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Larme]

Should Characters have to expend Karma to maintain their high skills ??
Professionals with high degrees of skill need to do lots of training to maintain their edge - 4+ hours a day for Athletes, regular courses for Techies, lots of socialising to maintain contacts, lots of maintenance for technical gear, etc.

No. That's what we would call the biggest nerf ever to nerf in all of nerfdom. It is a TERRIBLE and POINTLESS idea. Sorry to be blunt, but I HATE your suggestion.

[Ed_209a]

Should Characters have to expend Karma to maintain their high skills ??
Professionals with high degrees of skill need to do lots of training to maintain their edge - 4+ hours a day for Athletes, regular courses for Techies, lots of socialising to maintain contacts, lots of maintenance for technical gear, etc.

I would say no, provided they have reasonable downtime.

It is true, high skill levels are highly temporary. This is why military forces train as much as they can afford to.

I would assume that normally 'runners practice a lot off camera. If the runners _were_ in a situation where they couldn't practice at all for a few weeks, I would consider dropping the skill by one rank, but letting them buy it back at half karma value once they can practice again. AR technology would likely make it possible to practice most skills in almost any condition.

For example, with a training sim based on Miracle Shooter, a Samurai could fight an elite team of corpsec guards in any abandoned building, over and over, with Lone Star never even knowing.

[Slymoon]

I would say no, provided they have reasonable downtime.

It is true, high skill levels are highly temporary. This is why military forces train as much as they can afford to.

I would assume that normally 'runners practice a lot off camera. If the runners _were_ in a situation where they couldn't practice at all for a few weeks, I would consider dropping the skill by one rank, but letting them buy it back at half karma value once they can practice again. AR technology would likely make it possible to practice most skills in almost any condition.

For example, with a training sim based on Miracle Shooter, a Samurai could fight an elite team of corpsec guards in any abandoned building, over and over, with Lone Star never even knowing.

Agreed. Though I think Larme is a bit extreme in the damning of the idea, the idea of upkeep karma costs would be not an incentive to acquire a high skill. It would also be unfair across the character types, as some (mages/ adepts) already have more than a bit of a karma drain to just keep improving. As opposed to possible 'cash' improvements of cyber/ bio users.

I do assume for the most part that the downtime of 'runners is filled with off-screen upkeep of skills. Now, when a player of mine specifically says, "I am training all the time every day at least 4 hours" I do not give them any game mechanic perks, save for maybe allowing them to improve more than 1 skill at a time, if said skill was the ones being 'trained'.

I did have a system of skill erosion worked out, where as the skill eroded and the character got back 1/2 karma. However! that was for a specific campaign where the players started at 9yrs old and we played them until they were 25. A scenario or two every 3 years of age until they reached 25 where the game became more of a traditional run style. This again was a special case that I had in mind and the 25 yr old characters ended up base+50 karma characters when we started the 'traditional' game. (SR3 btw)

[Kyoto Kid]

...in game terms, at age ten, W.A. Mozart would have a 5 - 6 Logic/Intuition and skill rating of at least 6 (maybe 7 with expertise) in Artisan (Music). Several composers, such as Mendelssohn, Schubert, Chopin, etc. had composed solo, chamber, and even symphonic works by their pre- to mid-teens.

[Critias]

Yeah, but they're just bandies. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Fortune]

...in game terms, at age ten, W.A. Mozart would have a 5 - 6 Logic/Intuition and skill rating of at least 6 (maybe 7 with expertise) in Artisan (Music). Several composers, such as Mendelssohn, Schubert, Chopin, etc. had composed solo, chamber, and even symphonic works by their pre- to mid-teens.

Absotively, but Rockerz R Kool! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Ed_209a]

...in game terms, at age ten, W.A. Mozart would have a 5 - 6 Logic/Intuition and skill rating of at least 6 (maybe 7 with expertise) in Artisan (Music). Several composers, such as Mendelssohn, Schubert, Chopin, etc. had composed solo, chamber, and even symphonic works by their pre- to mid-teens.

Yeah, but they're just bandies. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

How _do_ you say "And one time at band camp..." in 18th century german?

[Kyoto Kid]

Yeah, but they're just bandies. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

...riiight.....

...and Rembrandt, Degas, and Monet were "doodlers"... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[Fortune]

"Und einmal am Bandlager... "? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[ArkonC]

"Und einmal am Bandlager... "? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Babelfish? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Fortune]

Guilty! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)