the basic argument is about whether or not grouping vaguely similar skills, such as "all melee attacks" or "nearly every ranged weapon" into single groups is more or less realistic than keeping things relatively discreet--edge weapons as opposed to clubs, rifles as opposed to pistols, etcetera.
my stance is that neither route is truly realistic; true realism, in skills, would require such a horribly complex system that it wouldn't be worth playing, even to me. so shortcuts have to be taken. SR, to pick the system that most users here are familiar with, takes the route of making skills largely discreet; Savage Worlds takes the route of making skills largely grouped. i'm putting this out as a point of reference, not so this can devolve into an "SW's dad can beat up SR's dad" argument--though doubtless, it will.
the reason i believe that grouping skills is a valid approach is that many skills share a large base. the basic tenants of unarmed combat--stance, striking points, blocking, taking hits and not bitching out--are formed on the same principles no matter what style you use, and are also shared with the basic tenants of armed melee combat. if Joe trains in karate for four years, and then he finds himself in a fight where he's armed with a knife, he's going to fuck shit up with that knife. he doesn't need to know any fancy moves, he doesn't have to have trained against knife attacks, he just has to know how to stand and how to throw a punch. is he going to be as good with that knife as someone who's trained with knives for four years? no, and that is where skill groups are admittedly unrealistic.
in a discrete skill system, those basics are ignored--and that is just as unrealistic as the way the grouping system ignores the differences between skill types. to use an extreme example, an SR3 master of kung fu (skill 10) who takes a week of classes in muay thai (skill 1) will suddenly get his ass handed to him by anybody who's got any experience in fighting (say, skill 3+)--as long as the kung fu master tries to use his muay thai. there's no cross-training, no addition of previously-learned principles, no synergy. that's just plain retarded. it's at least as retarded as being able to use a blowgun after training in pistols.
Full Version: skill grouping
The lack of cross training comes from your GM not letting you train faster when you pick up a simliar skill, say black belt karate guy takes muay thai and spend just as much time learning muay thai as he did karate, like you said basics are the same. Its also retarded of the person fighting with muay thai and not using his karate skills. I mean if I was playing and my kick boxer threw a flying knee I would roll my muay thai dice, but when I landed and wanted to use a karate round house kick I would use my karate dice. Its no more complictaed then what SR players already do if they use a pistol and an assualt rifle in the same round of combat.
So with considration to training and using the proper skills dice at the right time youd be ok.
You can find more here http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=13453
EDIT: Just to push the limits of your logic and maybe illustrate it a bit more. My friend is a auto mechanic, but the airport wont let him work on airplanes. I wonder why, he can fix piston driven cars, how much different are they then jet engines? I mean they both burn fuel to make parts move and drive vehicles.
So with considration to training and using the proper skills dice at the right time youd be ok.
You can find more here http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=13453
EDIT: Just to push the limits of your logic and maybe illustrate it a bit more. My friend is a auto mechanic, but the airport wont let him work on airplanes. I wonder why, he can fix piston driven cars, how much different are they then jet engines? I mean they both burn fuel to make parts move and drive vehicles.
except that you won't be okay. you have to spend a fuck. ton. of karma to bring your muay thai skill up on par with your kung fu skill.
In SR3 some weapon classifications are absurdly broad while others are absurdly narrow. It is absurd for a street ganger who's insane (statless) shanking skills come from back ally brawls and prison assassinations to stand his own against Mr. Har'lea'quinn in a formal fencing match. It is equally absurd for a guy who has gone hunting ever Saturday for the past 30 years and can hit a bullseye from a mile away with his barret suddenly doesn't know which way to point the Ak-47 or which of those new-fangled switches to pull to make it shoot thunder.
I think the good ol' skill web is the best approach. If you have the specific skill you can use it. If not, you can default to a similar skill for a penalty. Exactly what that penalty translates to can be handled in narrative. Defaulting to katana for a fire axe could be a +1 TN and the naritive could show that the weapon's top heavy nature and smashing (rather than slicing) nature made it unwieldy for the character.
I think the good ol' skill web is the best approach. If you have the specific skill you can use it. If not, you can default to a similar skill for a penalty. Exactly what that penalty translates to can be handled in narrative. Defaulting to katana for a fire axe could be a +1 TN and the naritive could show that the weapon's top heavy nature and smashing (rather than slicing) nature made it unwieldy for the character.
eh, maybe. the problem with that is, a +1 TN in melee combat is very often a death sentence. +2 or more, and you're in very serious trouble. i think dice penalties--or dice bonuses, perhaps a deeper specialization system--would work better.
Yeah? People still spend fuck tons of time mastering new forms of martial arts. I know many wont believe me when I say this because it fits the arguement too well, I dont give a shit if you believe me or not. But my father is a martial arts instructor. He holds black belts in three forms of martial arts. Three distinct styles. While yeah, you can learn basic moves to make the other forms easier to learn, you will not be a master of one then by defualt master the other two.
Same goes for pistols and other firearms. I could hit a bullseye at 100 yards with a 22 rifle at the age of 10. For years I learned rifles, then when I got older I was allowed to fire pistols. Guess what, I couldnt hit a paper target for a while at a distance with a pistol. I could shoot the pistol fine, I knew how to take it apart, clean it, load and all that, but hitting a target was somethign completely different.
I also learned to shoot a bow, I can kill a deer (target) at about 30 yards, not very impressive I know, but I can barely hit my garage with the neighbor kids blow gun. Which just baffles me, I mean I can hit a man in the heart at a 100 yards with most long arms, but risk wounding myself with a blowgun, go figure.
Christ man, flyig a plane is a task in it self, and all planes are pretty close to beign the same, but the FAA requires you have ass loads of flight time in a different craft before you can solo it or cross country fly it. Why does the DMV make you take tests for each style of vehicle? Im a pretty good car driver, but to drive a vehicle over 26000 pounuds I need a new liscense, if it pulls a trailer over a certain length I need a new licsense, or a motorcycle, again a different liscense.
Same goes for pistols and other firearms. I could hit a bullseye at 100 yards with a 22 rifle at the age of 10. For years I learned rifles, then when I got older I was allowed to fire pistols. Guess what, I couldnt hit a paper target for a while at a distance with a pistol. I could shoot the pistol fine, I knew how to take it apart, clean it, load and all that, but hitting a target was somethign completely different.
I also learned to shoot a bow, I can kill a deer (target) at about 30 yards, not very impressive I know, but I can barely hit my garage with the neighbor kids blow gun. Which just baffles me, I mean I can hit a man in the heart at a 100 yards with most long arms, but risk wounding myself with a blowgun, go figure.
Christ man, flyig a plane is a task in it self, and all planes are pretty close to beign the same, but the FAA requires you have ass loads of flight time in a different craft before you can solo it or cross country fly it. Why does the DMV make you take tests for each style of vehicle? Im a pretty good car driver, but to drive a vehicle over 26000 pounuds I need a new liscense, if it pulls a trailer over a certain length I need a new licsense, or a motorcycle, again a different liscense.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| eh, maybe. the problem with that is, a +1 TN in melee combat is very often a death sentence. +2 or more, and you're in very serious trouble. i think dice penalties--or dice bonuses, perhaps a deeper specialization system--would work better. |
A +1 target number is a death penalty but a -1 to the amount of dice you have isnt?
| QUOTE (Frag-o Delux) |
| People still spend fuck tons of time mastering new forms of martial arts. |
in a real fight, does your father stick with a single style? or is he able to combine techinques from multiple styles into a greater whole? most multi-style fighters i've ever talked to do the second. and that's what i'm talking about: just because you've only spent a week in muay thai doesn't mean you haven't learned something that will make your kung fu more effective. they're not seperate disciplines, they're different applications of the same discipline.
| QUOTE (Frag-o Delux) |
| A +1 target number is a death penalty but a -1 to the amount of dice you have isnt? |
every +1 TN, in SR3, roughly doubles the difficulty of the roll. if you're fighting me at TN 4, and i'm fighting you at TN 5, you are going to whup me till i cry for mama unless my dice total (skill + pool +/- modifiers) is roughly and consistently double yours.
| QUOTE (Frag-o Delux) | ||
A +1 target number is a death penalty but a -1 to the amount of dice you have isnt? |
Both techniques lack the granularity be be effective. As mfb statd, you'd really need a complex system to work out the aproperiate skill values and penalities. People could write mathmatics doctoral theseses (thesi?) on such a system.
A big problem is that skills aren't linear and skill translation isn't either. A person who has practiced with a katana of specific dimensions for decades may not be able to perform his most impressive and astounding feats with a weapon just a few milimeters shorter or longer or a few miliggrams heavier or lighter. However, his most specialized abilities are all that he would lose in such a transition and he should be able to adapt them with practice. On the other hand, a student who is just begining may be less comfortable with a different weapon but should be able to apply basic skills to all weapons of the same type with ease.
To be realistic in this regard you need absurd numbers of dice with absurd numbers of sides and absurd formulas to determine the actual results of those rolls.
quite so. it's a question of how you want to portray the world, in the end. in discrete skill systems, characters tend to be error-prone and fallible, especially outside their specialties. in grouped skill systems, characters tend to be very capable in a broad variety of areas. discrete skill systems tend to err on the side of making things dangerous and difficult; grouped skill systems tend to err on the side of making things swashbuckly and fast.
YAY blow gun = 105 howitzer. Or is that related to heavy weapons? 
They should just remove grouping all together. Reduce the cost for raising skills in character creation and with karma and then customize your guy however you want.
Your never gonna satisfy everyone by suggesting what should be in a group and what should not.
With grouping some people get screwed over because they want to be unique and use different weapons. Why should they be penalized??
Your never gonna satisfy everyone by suggesting what should be in a group and what should not.
With grouping some people get screwed over because they want to be unique and use different weapons. Why should they be penalized??
they're not. that's the point of grouping--anything that is even vaguely related uses the same skill. the ability to use a three-section-staff proficiently, when you've trained as a knife-fighter your whole life, is not a penalty. it's simply the lack of a bonus. removing grouping altogether would be a penalty.
The question isn't about being perfectly realistic. Quite honestly, everyone's got an opinion on what's most effective, and they're probably all equally right.
Overly specific groupings isn't inherently more realistic than extremely broad ones. Basically, once you've learned an art well enough to have thouroughly broken it down, you come to realize that they're all basically the same. Every fighting art depends on effective body mechanics, and there are only so many efficient ways to move. what differentiates arts isn't the moves, it's in how they're used.
For example, picture the classic, "Wax on, Wax off, Daniel-San" block. On the one hand, it's a effective upper body block. But if you use an upright closed fist, it can also be a backfist to the jaw. Add just a touch of torso-twist, and angle it out somewhat, and you've got a nice elbow strike. Use more wrist snap, and open the hand so you're leading with the first two fingers, and you've got the classic Wing Chun eye strike. Grab the guy at the end, then include some follow through, and you've got the start of a throw. With only a few minor alterations, it's the lead-in for an arm bar, a takedown, a choke... the list goes on and on.
Bruce Lee was the biggest proponent of this theory in our time, and he proved it quite solidly. As he advanced in his skill, he no longer saw things as techniques; he saw them as movements. There's a classic story about him taking ballet lessons, trying to see if he could integrate the leg movements. Once you're good at combat, you're good at all forms of combat. Strict monostylists are best represented as having a lower level of overall skill, while people with a broader knowledge base would end up eith a higher effective skill.
In my opinion, the best system is one that offers a good general level of skill, with the option for a specialization of some sort. For example, there's not a UFC fighter who isn't trained in both grappling and striking these days. To show someone at that level of skill, making them buy striking and grappling separately is ludicrous. Instead, you can offer them a specialization bonus for one or the other; this rewards them for roleplay, makes the game much easier to track, and generally lends to faster gameplay.
Overly specific groupings isn't inherently more realistic than extremely broad ones. Basically, once you've learned an art well enough to have thouroughly broken it down, you come to realize that they're all basically the same. Every fighting art depends on effective body mechanics, and there are only so many efficient ways to move. what differentiates arts isn't the moves, it's in how they're used.
For example, picture the classic, "Wax on, Wax off, Daniel-San" block. On the one hand, it's a effective upper body block. But if you use an upright closed fist, it can also be a backfist to the jaw. Add just a touch of torso-twist, and angle it out somewhat, and you've got a nice elbow strike. Use more wrist snap, and open the hand so you're leading with the first two fingers, and you've got the classic Wing Chun eye strike. Grab the guy at the end, then include some follow through, and you've got the start of a throw. With only a few minor alterations, it's the lead-in for an arm bar, a takedown, a choke... the list goes on and on.
Bruce Lee was the biggest proponent of this theory in our time, and he proved it quite solidly. As he advanced in his skill, he no longer saw things as techniques; he saw them as movements. There's a classic story about him taking ballet lessons, trying to see if he could integrate the leg movements. Once you're good at combat, you're good at all forms of combat. Strict monostylists are best represented as having a lower level of overall skill, while people with a broader knowledge base would end up eith a higher effective skill.
In my opinion, the best system is one that offers a good general level of skill, with the option for a specialization of some sort. For example, there's not a UFC fighter who isn't trained in both grappling and striking these days. To show someone at that level of skill, making them buy striking and grappling separately is ludicrous. Instead, you can offer them a specialization bonus for one or the other; this rewards them for roleplay, makes the game much easier to track, and generally lends to faster gameplay.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Once you're good at combat, you're good at all forms of combat. Strict monostylists are best represented as having a lower level of overall skill, while people with a broader knowledge base would end up eith a higher effective skill. |
Here's where I have to disagree. Some things don't translate well, including the difference between being a boxer and Indiana Jones' whip. Or being a rifleman and picking up blowguns, slings, and bows. Or being able to throw shuriken really well and translating that to a lasso or bola.
Grouping everything under 3 banners doesn't make for faster game play. If I have 3 different melee skills and you have one, we're still taking the same amount of time rolloing dice. If I don't know my stats very well I might lose a fraction of a second glancing down at the sheet.
It definitely makes book keeping simpler, but that's not necessarily a good thing if it causes a system where you have to divide someone's skillset out through GM Fiat of "I'm sorry, you can't use every weapon on the planet at olympic levels just because you've trained really well in Tai Bo."
| QUOTE |
| Actually, it's not. Savage Worlds is a generic system. In GURPS and d20, you often will find that certain rules are clustered in certain setting books. WOD and a ton of White Wolf books did exactly the same thing. Shadowrun, being setting-specific, only has one campaign setting to sell. Also, Deadlands is not a campaign book; it's a setting book. No adventures are included. The other Savage World plot point books, however, are campaign books: they all contain a full campaign, complete with world and adventures. |
So I have to buy a "setting" book to get generic rules rather than a "campaign book. The reply is still no thanks.
| QUOTE |
| Considering that I've never run a setting for which kung-fu tournaments was appropriate, it's never come up. |
Ah, then it must never matter, since it's never intruded into Cain's world.
| QUOTE |
| At any event, if their fighting skill is low, there's really no problem; and if their fighting skill is high, they've always got edges in their favorite weapons. So, their "full fighting skill" != "full fighting effectiveness". |
What about the guy that wants to be able to defend himself well but would rather get his edges in his primary field? I guess that never intrudes on your world either.
| QUOTE |
| I can see that you've played a con game or two, but I doubt that you're even old enough to have played "every version" of D&D; I can recall playing this game called "Chainmail". |
How old do you think I am? You've made several comments about turning 16, but I assumed those were intended as insults not actual guesses about my age. I've mentioned my age here several times, and I can assure you it's old enough to have played Chainmail quite a bit more than "once at a con".
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Some things don't translate well, including the difference between being a boxer and Indiana Jones' whip. Or being a rifleman and picking up blowguns, slings, and bows. |
and some things do translate well, such as using a knife instead of a fist. there are issues with both systems at their extreme ends.
Yep. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm not saying that SR's way is hyper realistic, or that SW's way is hyperunrealistic. I just think that SR's way is a better model to use.
Someone mentioned a skillweb and I agree that's really a good way to model it, but too complex for most purposes. Groupings of similar weapons (clubs, firearms, etc.) with an ability to default between them would be close enough to that if it was done well enough. It would still be really complex though, and I doubt most players want to go back t the old days of SR's skill web.
Someone mentioned a skillweb and I agree that's really a good way to model it, but too complex for most purposes. Groupings of similar weapons (clubs, firearms, etc.) with an ability to default between them would be close enough to that if it was done well enough. It would still be really complex though, and I doubt most players want to go back t the old days of SR's skill web.
It seems like a better solution would be to use a skill break down like SR, but within a skill group, all related skills have a rating based on some portion of the highest skill. So if you have Shotguns 6, you have pistols, SMGs, rifles and assault rifles at 2 (1/3 of the highest skill) by default. Raising SMGs to 4 has no effect on the others because then we're making loopholes that will be massively abused. Specializations have no effects and the defaulting to a skill rules are ignored.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
That could work.
I agree that perfect realism would require a hideously complex system. Within limits, I don't think variations in the length of the list of skills (such as going from Pistols/Machine Pistols/SMGs/ARs/Rifles/Shotguns to Small Arms or vice versa) has much anything to do with realism, although changing the way the different skills relate to each other can (e.g. no grouping vs. skillweb).
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| It seems like a better solution would be to use a skill break down like SR, but within a skill group, all related skills have a rating based on some portion of the highest skill. So if you have Shotguns 6, you have pistols, SMGs, rifles and assault rifles at 2 (1/3 of the highest skill) by default. |
That doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. 1/3 the highest skill would be quite low, however, at least when dealing with a group as large as the SR3 firearms skills -- I'd rather make that work at a rate of 2/3. For example, if you have mastered the use of assault rifles, I think it's more likely you would be skilled with rifles, shotguns and SMGs as well rather than having some practice with them (borrowing descriptions from SR3, pp. 98-99). Depends on exactly what kind of skill groups you have in your game, of course.
I chose 1/3 also out of mechanics considerations, and to deal with the wide list of skill groups we're talking about. To borrow from SR4, shadowing doesn't lend much to palming, but the basic ideas of misdirection, using cover, etc. still apply. The second problem is that it throws a wrench into chargen. Certainly if every three skill points spend award about 4 points for free (in the case of firearms, using 1/3 rate), 50 skill points becomes absolutely ridiculous. If 3 spent rewards the PC with 8 points for free, I don't think you even COULD spend 50 points, and in fact the focus on skills will be greatly shifted (maybe skills should be made more expensive? Of course, the skillpoints at the beginning should be far more limited). 1/3 just keeps things a little less crazy without making the math too painful.
The skill groups for SR4 or the defaulting groupings from SR3 would work well to determine actual groups of skills. Some skills would be noted as unlinked for whatever reason. Alternatively, you could bring back the skillweb from SR2. One jump away means a bonus of 1/3 the skill of the dominant skill. Two jumps is 1/6. So on and so forth.
If anyone has ideas on how to actually change chargen to keep things balanced, I'll give this a try in my game and see what people think.
The skill groups for SR4 or the defaulting groupings from SR3 would work well to determine actual groups of skills. Some skills would be noted as unlinked for whatever reason. Alternatively, you could bring back the skillweb from SR2. One jump away means a bonus of 1/3 the skill of the dominant skill. Two jumps is 1/6. So on and so forth.
If anyone has ideas on how to actually change chargen to keep things balanced, I'll give this a try in my game and see what people think.
| QUOTE (Frag-o Delux) |
| Same goes for pistols and other firearms. I could hit a bullseye at 100 yards with a 22 rifle at the age of 10. For years I learned rifles, then when I got older I was allowed to fire pistols. Guess what, I couldnt hit a paper target for a while at a distance with a pistol. I could shoot the pistol fine, I knew how to take it apart, clean it, load and all that, but hitting a target was somethign completely different. |
Well, damn, I have to be some sort of natural born gunslinger, then, because after years of shooting nothing but air and .22 target rifles, I was actually able to put most of my shots into the target the first time I picked up a pistol. And so could most of the other people I went shooting with that time, and some of them were girls.
Guess you just suck.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| [...] the wide list of skill groups we're talking about. |
That's the problem right there, then. I was talking about a different list.
In SR3 canon, you've only really got 3 serious skill groups: melee weapons (edged, clubs, polearms), small arms (pistols, SMGs, shotguns, rifles, ARs) and aircraft (winged, rotor, vectored thrust, lighter-than-air). Then there're the 4 pairs (cyberimplant/unarmed, gunnery/launch weapons, computer/electronics, motorboat/ship). Nothing else would gain from such a rule.
Since SR4 includes a system of purchasing whole skill groups as well as individual skills, it's got plenty more groups. I haven't studied the SR4 skills at any length, so I can't really comment on what highest skill/group rate fits them best.
| QUOTE (mmu1) |
| Well, damn, I have to be some sort of natural born gunslinger, then, because after years of shooting nothing but air and .22 target rifles, I was actually able to put most of my shots into the target the first time I picked up a pistol. |
Apart from 1 person (who was an utter moron), my whole MP platoon hit a 50cm diameter target at 25 meters with nearly all shots the first time they ever fired a pistol (beaten up >25-year-old Browning HPs). The more probable explanation is indeed that Frag-o Delux simply sucks.
Did you ever give them blowguns and hand-held bola catapults?
No. I do not consider exotic (read: stupid ass) ranged weapons in the same skill group as most small arms. They did well with Mossberg 12G pumps, KK62 LMGs and NsV 12.7mm HMGs, however.
(And to be clear: "my platoon" as in "I was in it", not one I trained or led or anything.)
(And to be clear: "my platoon" as in "I was in it", not one I trained or led or anything.)
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| In SR3 canon, you've only really got 3 serious skill groups: melee weapons (edged, clubs, polearms), small arms (pistols, SMGs, shotguns, rifles, ARs) and aircraft (winged, rotor, vectored thrust, lighter-than-air). Then there're the 4 pairs (cyberimplant/unarmed, gunnery/launch weapons, computer/electronics, motorboat/ship). Nothing else would gain from such a rule. |
There's also Walker/Mechanical Arm Operation and Tracks/Car, but overall your point stands.
| QUOTE | ||
Apart from 1 person (who was an utter moron), my whole MP platoon hit a 50cm diameter target at 25 meters with nearly all shots the first time they ever fired a pistol (beaten up >25-year-old Browning HPs). The more probable explanation is indeed that Frag-o Delux simply sucks. |
Aww, now I feel bad. I was hard-pressed to hit the target once the first time I fired a pistol. Granted I was about nine at the time…
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| There's also Walker/Mechanical Arm Operation and Tracks/Car, but overall your point stands. |
Sorry, I only checked the table on p. 82, SR3.
(And read even that wrong. Whatever.)| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Granted I was about nine at the time… |
That will make a huge difference. I can't imagine the average 9-year-old handling, say, a double action revolver with any accuracy because of the stiff trigger alone. Small children need compact, polymer frame single stack .380 ACPs with really light triggers.
There's also Etiquette/Negotiation/Interrogation/Intimidation/Leadership, and B/R (weapons groups).
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
Small children need compact, polymer frame single stack .380 ACPs with really light triggers. |
Sigged
What's the problem with SR4's skill groups, exactly? They're just a way of spending points, and getting a bit of a discount for skills that, in theory, have some overlap.
If you're willing to accept "Pistols" or "Negotiation" as being an acceptably precise method of dividing skills, what's the problem here?
I've got no personal experience with automatic weapons. I do, however, have a decent amount of experience with weapons that are quite similar... semiautomatic "assault rifles" and carbines. If I wanted to represent that in SR terms (and stretch reality a bit) it wouldn't be too hard to say that I'd bought the Firearms group at 1, and then pushed Pistols and Long Arms to a higher rating, leaving Automatics at 1.
Skill groups are meant to represent someone who's got a broad range of experience with a number of related topics having an easier time (that is, paying less BP or karma) of learning things than someone who's only got experience with one aspect of that group. The fact that it results in some characters having *identical* levels of skill across the group is a systemic compromise.
And honestly, if it's causing problems for you, don't let people get skill groups; they've got to buy everything on it's own. This may cause problems at chargen, of course... 400 points never really feels like very many. Or, you could do what I do, and let people break skill groups at creation, encouraging them to pick up the basics of a number of different things related to what they're going to specialize in.
If you're willing to accept "Pistols" or "Negotiation" as being an acceptably precise method of dividing skills, what's the problem here?
I've got no personal experience with automatic weapons. I do, however, have a decent amount of experience with weapons that are quite similar... semiautomatic "assault rifles" and carbines. If I wanted to represent that in SR terms (and stretch reality a bit) it wouldn't be too hard to say that I'd bought the Firearms group at 1, and then pushed Pistols and Long Arms to a higher rating, leaving Automatics at 1.
Skill groups are meant to represent someone who's got a broad range of experience with a number of related topics having an easier time (that is, paying less BP or karma) of learning things than someone who's only got experience with one aspect of that group. The fact that it results in some characters having *identical* levels of skill across the group is a systemic compromise.
And honestly, if it's causing problems for you, don't let people get skill groups; they've got to buy everything on it's own. This may cause problems at chargen, of course... 400 points never really feels like very many. Or, you could do what I do, and let people break skill groups at creation, encouraging them to pick up the basics of a number of different things related to what they're going to specialize in.
I don't think anyone is saying that skill group are causing problems. The topic is more along the lines of:
Discus (flaming optional).
- SR4-style skill groups don't realistically model the similarities between skills
- SW-style skills don't realistically model the disparities between skills
Discus (flaming optional).
OK. SR4 skill groups model the similarities between skills reasonably well: it's less expensive to increase those skills on a point-per-skill-raise basis if you're doing it as part of a group of skills. I allow skill group breakup (and individual advancement) during character creation, and would probably make it so that even when you've got a skill group broken up/unformed, you have the option of dropping the 2.5x cost worth of points in and pushing every skill in the group 1 point, but that's about the only change I'd make. There's enough times when a player is going to look at that and say "these skills are different enough that it'd make more sense for karma costs if I were to push them individually" that the second part would simply be a non-issue for a lot of players.
The problem with SR4's model isn't the skill groups, it's the lack of links between the skills for defaulting. According to folks a lot more experienced than me, skill in pistols will translate into skill in rifles. Not on a one-for-one basis, but you're better with a rifle than if you'd never practiced with a pistol. The same would hold true for some noncombat skills.
It's not a huge problem, nor even IMO big enough that it needs to be fixed. There are other systems out there that mimic reality better with their skill groups and similar skills rules. Shadowrun doesn't really need that level of detail.
And it's a lot better than assuming that "fighting" and "shooting" and "throwing" are all the skills you'll need.
It's not a huge problem, nor even IMO big enough that it needs to be fixed. There are other systems out there that mimic reality better with their skill groups and similar skills rules. Shadowrun doesn't really need that level of detail.
And it's a lot better than assuming that "fighting" and "shooting" and "throwing" are all the skills you'll need.
like i've said elsewhere, the ability to use a blowgun because you're good at shooting pistols is at least as retarded as a grand master in one martial art suddenly finding his fighting ability reduced by 90% or more when he switches styles. moreover, skills such as fighting with a knife and fighting with your fists have more in common than they have differences.
heck, if fighting with a knife is, for the sake of 'realism', considered a seperate skill from fighting unarmed, then by all rights defending yourself from knives should be a different skill than defending yourself from unarmed attacks. there are way, way, way bigger differences in defending than there are in attacking. a person who has trained in using his fists will be able to use a knife no problem; a person who has trained to defend only against unarmed attacks, who goes up against a knife-wielding opponent, is going to be not-slightly at a loss because a lot of his defensive moves will require major adjustments. they'll be better off than a person who hasn't trained at all, sure, but there's still a big difference there.
heck, if fighting with a knife is, for the sake of 'realism', considered a seperate skill from fighting unarmed, then by all rights defending yourself from knives should be a different skill than defending yourself from unarmed attacks. there are way, way, way bigger differences in defending than there are in attacking. a person who has trained in using his fists will be able to use a knife no problem; a person who has trained to defend only against unarmed attacks, who goes up against a knife-wielding opponent, is going to be not-slightly at a loss because a lot of his defensive moves will require major adjustments. they'll be better off than a person who hasn't trained at all, sure, but there's still a big difference there.
| QUOTE |
| Grouping everything under 3 banners doesn't make for faster game play. If I have 3 different melee skills and you have one, we're still taking the same amount of time rolloing dice. If I don't know my stats very well I might lose a fraction of a second glancing down at the sheet. |
It does make things easier, because each group will have its own specific rules. The more groups you have, the more rules you need to apply. For example, in SR3, you can use certain flails to make entangling attacks, requiring a special exception. Polearms need special case rules, especially when concerning dwarves and trolls. And so on, and so forth. If you want a truly unified and easy-to-run system, you need to have as few exceptions as possible.
| QUOTE |
| It definitely makes book keeping simpler, but that's not necessarily a good thing if it causes a system where you have to divide someone's skillset out through GM Fiat of "I'm sorry, you can't use every weapon on the planet at olympic levels just because you've trained really well in Tai Bo." |
If someone's really trained in Tae Bo, but hasn't studied any other art, then his overall skill level is going to be very low. You're under the mistaken impression that because a person has studied one art extensively, that will make him into a good fighter. The entire UFC conclusively disproves this theory.
In Savage Worlds, if you want to have a d10 in Shooting, then you represent that by having trained extensively in every firearm known to man, as well as having gained familiarity in other ranged weapons. Aim is at least partly a matter of natural talent and instinct as well; and in a pulpy game like SW, the ability to say: "No, I've never used a Chinese throwing dart before..." ssSSHHTHUNK! "But it doesn't seem to be too difficult." is just part of the overall atmosphere.
| QUOTE |
| What about the guy that wants to be able to defend himself well but would rather get his edges in his primary field? |
Then he buys edges in his primary field, giving him better skill there. He can still defend himself well if he has a good general Fighting skill, he's just a lot better with his primary weapon. If you're a really good epee fighter, you're not going to be nearly as good with a saber, but you won't be totally incompetent either.
| QUOTE |
| How old do you think I am? |
12.
| QUOTE |
| Same goes for pistols and other firearms. I could hit a bullseye at 100 yards with a 22 rifle at the age of 10. For years I learned rifles, then when I got older I was allowed to fire pistols. Guess what, I couldnt hit a paper target for a while at a distance with a pistol. I could shoot the pistol fine, I knew how to take it apart, clean it, load and all that, but hitting a target was somethign completely different. |
Honestly, the first time I fired a rifle, I had a pretty crappy spread. Then I picked up a pistol, and had the exact same crappy spread. I got a little better at pistols, then tried a rifle again; I had the exact same slightly-better spread.
I have stayed consistently equal in my firearms skills. Equally lousy, that is.
| QUOTE |
| What's the problem with SR4's skill groups, exactly? They're just a way of spending points, and getting a bit of a discount for skills that, in theory, have some overlap. |
The concept isn't bad, but the cap leaves a lot to be desired. It's impossible to have someone who's noticeably above average in all firearms, no matter how extensively he might have trained. In fact, you are actually penalized in effectiveness, since you can't have any of the skills over 4, or take a specialization.
| QUOTE |
| It does make things easier, because each group will have its own specific rules. The more groups you have, the more rules you need to apply. For example, in SR3, you can use certain flails to make entangling attacks, requiring a special exception. Polearms need special case rules, especially when concerning dwarves and trolls. And so on, and so forth. If you want a truly unified and easy-to-run system, you need to have as few exceptions as possible. |
But if you want a system where weapons can do what they're designed to do (entangle to use your example) you need exceptions. If someone in a unified system is capable of grapplign via whatever method, you'll need grappling rules. That doesn't change based on the number of subgroups of combat skills.
| QUOTE |
| If someone's really trained in Tae Bo, but hasn't studied any other art, then his overall skill level is going to be very low. You're under the mistaken impression that because a person has studied one art extensively, that will make him into a good fighter. The entire UFC conclusively disproves this theory. |
The entire UFC also operates under quite a few rules that don't happen in an actual fight. I'm by no means saying that someone trained in boxing since birth (d10+2) should be world class with fencing (d10), but Savage Worlds rules do.
| QUOTE |
| In Savage Worlds, if you want to have a d10 in Shooting, then you represent that by having trained extensively in every firearm known to man, as well as having gained familiarity in other ranged weapons. |
Including weapons that don't act like firearms and you've never even heard of. Hence the problem.
| QUOTE |
| Then he buys edges in his primary field, giving him better skill there. He can still defend himself well if he has a good general Fighting skill, he's just a lot better with his primary weapon. If you're a really good epee fighter, you're not going to be nearly as good with a saber, but you won't be totally incompetent either. |
You misunderstand. He doesn't want any combat edges at all. He doesn't want to be able to use an epee or saber, but because he bought fighting skill he does know how to use them.
| QUOTE |
| 12. |
Off by quite a large margin, but thank you for thinking I'm so young at heart ol' fella.
| QUOTE |
| It's impossible to have someone who's noticeably above average in all firearms, no matter how extensively he might have trained. In fact, you are actually penalized in effectiveness, since you can't have any of the skills over 4, or take a specialization. |
Close. It's impossible to start with someone noticably above average in all firearms, but you can certainly get them there with karma.
The cap only exists at character creation. The lack of specialization is a pain in the ass.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| I'm by no means saying that someone trained in boxing since birth (d10+2) should be world class with fencing (d10), but Savage Worlds rules do. |
that assumes that someone can get to d10 fightin', having only done boxing training and fighting unarmed opponents, ever.
There are roleplaying and/or training limits in the rules? If so, that makes more sense to me.
Good gawd... just read all of this. Anyway, I'm running a Savage Worlds game (Necessary Evil) this weekend...
In character creation, there is an initial cap to the skill level, you can't raise it higher than the related attribute level. is that what you're asking? Also you can only raise your skill level through the raises only due to specific circumstances (basically hitting 5 xp, at every 20 points you go to new level, but every five xp you have the option to raise an attribute, a skill level, gain a new edge). Not sure if there's any other limits specifically in the rules but I don't think so. That's probalby more up to the GM unless I totally missed that section in the rules.
In character creation, there is an initial cap to the skill level, you can't raise it higher than the related attribute level. is that what you're asking? Also you can only raise your skill level through the raises only due to specific circumstances (basically hitting 5 xp, at every 20 points you go to new level, but every five xp you have the option to raise an attribute, a skill level, gain a new edge). Not sure if there's any other limits specifically in the rules but I don't think so. That's probalby more up to the GM unless I totally missed that section in the rules.
| QUOTE (mmu1) | ||
Well, damn, I have to be some sort of natural born gunslinger, then, because after years of shooting nothing but air and .22 target rifles, I was actually able to put most of my shots into the target the first time I picked up a pistol. And so could most of the other people I went shooting with that time, and some of them were girls. Guess you just suck. |
I was going to defend myself agains this, but if all you can do is come in attack me, that just means you have nothing to offer and more then likely never have fired a weapon in your life.
Does that include me too?
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Jun 28 2006, 06:21 PM) |
| Does that include me too? |
Didnt see your post till after I replied. So far I havent a reason to disblieve you have fired a gun before, though I do know a guy that can spout off stuff about the military and guns like you and has never served, so its not beyond beliefe that you are faking it. But I wont say that, because you seem to be a forth right person so far.
Point I was making is I guess I did suck with pistols, but at 12 with a small hand and stubby fingers .38 clip feed pistol was a bit big for my hands. Hell at 17 a colt 45 APC was still big for my hands. But now Im much better, still not as good with a pistol as I am with a rifle or shotgun. But then again I dont shoot pistols all that often. Most of my friends are hunters, not target shooters or cops anymore.
There has been a good or at least reasonible comprimise to our discussng with groupings adn partial skills to represent comparitive weapons being learned. So why not concentrate on that? My position has been stated.
EDIT: ANd you have contributed to the discussion, you just happened to tack on at the end of a post you agreed with the other guy. mmu1 just stepped in with an insult, and well that means I have no respect for him, he didnt add anything, and I have no reason to believe hes ever touched a gun, real or plastic disk gun.
I don't understand what's so hard about saying that if your skills wash over into nearby areas, you should represent that by having a point or two of skill in that area. Hell, SR4 does a decent job of doing that for you by letting you default to attributes. SR3's defaulting wasn't too shabby either.
Character sheets are abstractions of something that theoretically exists. If your character's familiarity with rifles allows him to shoot handguns alright, then give him a low pistol skill and a decent rifle skill to reflect that. On the other hand, if you're one of those people who can shoot rifles fine but can't hit a damn thing with a handgun because of how they handle, how they fit, how they recoil, and how short the sight radius is, you could easily have a rifle skill and shoot pistols based solely on Agility-1.
Character sheets are abstractions of something that theoretically exists. If your character's familiarity with rifles allows him to shoot handguns alright, then give him a low pistol skill and a decent rifle skill to reflect that. On the other hand, if you're one of those people who can shoot rifles fine but can't hit a damn thing with a handgun because of how they handle, how they fit, how they recoil, and how short the sight radius is, you could easily have a rifle skill and shoot pistols based solely on Agility-1.
Frag-o Delux: If you wish, I'm sure I can prove to you I served 9 months in the FDF and fired the weapons I mentioned (along with the 66 KES 88/LAW 72 practice rockets, 7.62x54mmR TaKi 85 sniper rifle, and obviously the 7.62x39mm RK 62 AR) over PMs.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| Character sheets are abstractions of something that theoretically exists. If your character's familiarity with rifles allows him to shoot handguns alright, then give him a low pistol skill and a decent rifle skill to reflect that. On the other hand, if you're one of those people who can shoot rifles fine but can't hit a damn thing with a handgun because of how they handle, how they fit, how they recoil, and how short the sight radius is, you could easily have a rifle skill and shoot pistols based solely on Agility-1. |
What that says to me is that the system allows for realistic levels of skill for all characters, it's just the players' (or GM's) responsibility to make them so if they wish to. In general I take "realistic rules" to mean that the system enforces realism in such things.
Sure you could buy all the firearms skills to medium-high levels while maxing out one or two, thus creating a realistically balanced skill set for your character. But, because of the inherent need for some min/maxing at character generation, and in SR3's case the disconnect between the skill point buy and the Karma system, you are in fact encouraged not to do that. Thus there ends up being far more strictly specialized criminal operators running the shadows of the 6th world than there should logically be.
At the very least, then, then system should encourage realistic character builds -- which SR4's skill group system may do better than SR3 does. However, enforcing realism through the rules might be simpler, and since I don't particularly hunger for unrealism that's the more logical route for me. Hence my interest in the "skill group at a fixed rate of the highest skill within the group" rule.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Jun 28 2006, 07:19 PM) |
| Frag-o Delux: If you wish, I'm sure I can prove to you I served 9 months in the FDF and fired the weapons I mentioned (along with the 66 KES 88/LAW 72 practice rockets, 7.62x54mmR TaKi 85 sniper rifle, and obviously the 7.62x39mm RK 62 AR) over PMs. |
I told you I believed you. I have been around a long time, mostly lurking of late. You and raygun debating guns and such has made me confident in your knowledge. But if you have pics or something of you shooting a missile Id be glad to check them out.
I just dont like people stepping in and insulting other people for no other reason then being an ass and not add anything. What can I say, Im not perfect at all things I try, thats why I practice at it. Pistols I mean.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| In SR3 canon, you've only really got 3 serious skill groups: melee weapons (edged, clubs, polearms), small arms (pistols, SMGs, shotguns, rifles, ARs) and aircraft (winged, rotor, vectored thrust, lighter-than-air). Then there're the 4 pairs (cyberimplant/unarmed, gunnery/launch weapons, computer/electronics, motorboat/ship). Nothing else would gain from such a rule. |
I disagree.
You have:
Firearms - Pistols/SMGs/Rifles/ARs/Shotguns/Some special weapons (like lasers and suitcase guns)
Big firearms - Heavy weapons/gunnery/launch weapons
Projectile weapons - Projectile weapons/thrown and stupid others no one ever uses
Melee - Edged weapons/clubs/polearms/whips/debatably unarmed plus odds and ends weapons
Fisticuffs - All martial arts, unarmed, cyber-weapon combat, improvised melee combat
Face skills - etiquette (all specialties could be broken out again, ala SR2 and made into their own area, or kept together and stuck with face skills)/negotiation/interrogation/intimidation
Physical skills - Athletics/diving/stealth/dodge (if applicable)
Magic skills - aura reading/sorcery/conjuring
Smart person skills - computer/electronics/computers b/r/electronics b/r
Driving - bikes/cars/hovercraft
Sailing - motorboat/ship/sailboat/submarine
Flying - winged/rotor/vector thrust/LTA craft
B/R skills - all b/r skills excepting computers, electronics and odds and ends
Optional - The excellent SR4 thief skills disguise/infiltration/palming/shadowing
The only odds and ends left are demolitions, which only n00bs and unusual characters take, and biotech.
The SR2/3 defaulting rules are great for letting someone with skill in pistols still be able to use a rifle (although obviously not as well), however does not replicate the fact that much of the knowledge acquired in learning how to use a pistol is the same knowledge required to use a rifle - there is no need to learn the same stuff twice. So SR2/3's only real failure is in upgrading related skills (I think SR4 has a neat mechanic with skill groups, but goes the wrong way. I don't know how it is physically possible to learn how to use ALL pistols without learning anything about how to use rifles. Skill groups should be required or somehow automatic at their lowest levels.)
| QUOTE (Frag-o Delux) |
| I just dont like people stepping in and insulting other people for no other reason then being an ass and not add anything. What can I say, Im not perfect at all things I try, thats why I practice at it. Pistols I mean. |
Aw, relax a bit... I wasn't insulting you, I was just making fun of what I considered a really bad example (and a poor argument against grouping skills). Hence the
If I was insulting you, it'd have been 
I meant "skill groups" as in the defaulting skill groupings in canon SR3. The complete list of groups on the table on page 82 of SR3 is:
Edged/Clubs/Polearms (+ B/Rs)
Cyber-implant/Unarmed (+B/Rs)
Pistols/SMGs/Rifles/ARs/Shotguns (+B/Rs)
Gunnery/Launch Weapons (+B/Rs)
Computer/Electronics (+B/Rs)
Interrogation/Intimidation
Motorboat/Ship (+B/Rs)
Winged/Rotor/Lighter-Than-Air Aircraft (+B/Rs)
The Companion and Rigger 3 add a few, but the rest are individual skills that do not allow for defaulting. With only a few exceptions, I would not suggest grouping the other skills, including many you mentioned, on the same level as I think small arms should be grouped together.
Perhaps include two levels of groups, tight (with whole group at 2/3 the highest skill) and loose (1/3 the highest skill), unless that's getting into the Too Complex territory again.
Edged/Clubs/Polearms (+ B/Rs)
Cyber-implant/Unarmed (+B/Rs)
Pistols/SMGs/Rifles/ARs/Shotguns (+B/Rs)
Gunnery/Launch Weapons (+B/Rs)
Computer/Electronics (+B/Rs)
Interrogation/Intimidation
Motorboat/Ship (+B/Rs)
Winged/Rotor/Lighter-Than-Air Aircraft (+B/Rs)
The Companion and Rigger 3 add a few, but the rest are individual skills that do not allow for defaulting. With only a few exceptions, I would not suggest grouping the other skills, including many you mentioned, on the same level as I think small arms should be grouped together.
Perhaps include two levels of groups, tight (with whole group at 2/3 the highest skill) and loose (1/3 the highest skill), unless that's getting into the Too Complex territory again.
| QUOTE (mmu1 @ Jun 28 2006, 07:58 PM) | ||
Aw, relax a bit... I wasn't insulting you, I was just making fun of what I considered a really bad example (and a poor argument against grouping skills). Hence the If I was insulting you, it'd have been |
I figured you were, thats why I didnt insult you back. And I was only using myself as an exmple because Im not going to make things up to prove my point. I havent seen many other people just begin to use pistols. Everyone I went shooting with were in the military for years so had years of practice with all those weapons.
EDIT: And we rarely went to public gun ranges, we usually shot on private property with only really close friends and family. Not all the weapons we had werent exactally legal. My favorite memory of those days was when my fathers friend george let me shoot his full auto AK. I had to fill clips all day to get the chance to shoot it. The guy had ammo case after ammo case of 30 and 45 round clips and we shot all day. I only got a chance to shoot it as the sun was setting and we were packing up to go home. If his wife hadnt needed his help putting something in the bed of his truck I wouldnt have had the chance to hold the trigger down for about 10 rounds.
I guess Im taking thinks too seriously lately anyway, its been a rough couple days.
I think its a fine example. I could use a rifle perfectly fine, my pistol abilities were shoddy at best, I couldnt hit shit with a blow gun and I was almost comparable with my bow to my rifle.
I do agree there is a limited cross training factor to consider with like weapons. But only at the rudimentory level. Sure most martial art are close in formand movement, but a guy with 20 yellow belts will still not be a competition for a guy with 1 or 2 black belts. I would like to see a group skill purchase where you buy the group to a certain level then have to increase one skill over the rest adn then you can increase the other skills at will. Sort of like a linked attribute thing, you get a discount ont he lower level skills, till you meet or beat the higher level skill.
For instance, small arms would be smgs, carbine and rifles. You could get up to 3 in all 3 skills for a set price, but then the character may decide hes a carbine man, runs that skill to 6 using standard skills. Later he decides his rifles could use some work, spending a discounted amount of karma till he reaches 5 in rifles, then a standard price for 6 in rifles and so if he continues to beat the carbines skill say up to 8. But a few months later he figures hes better off with SMGs, so hell get a discounted cost till he reaches 8. Same with his carbines till it matches the higher level skill in the group.
Also like pointed out earlier, the skill that covers everything promotes pulpy I can do anything attitudes, where SRs skills promote the, shit I messed up *splat* attitude in the game. For SR I like the shit I messed up *splat* feel, its suppose to be a depressing setting. If I was brought into a SW game I wouldnt care about the pulpy i can do anything skills, because thats probablt how the game was meant to be played. I just wouldnt liek to see SR with that style of skills, nor would I bet anyone playing SW having SR skills put on them.
| QUOTE (Frag-o Delux) |
| For instance, small arms would be smgs, carbine and rifles. |
If carbines are separated from SMGs and ARs, then you definitely want separate skills for revolvers, semi-automatic pistols and machine pistols, for firing shot and slug from shotguns, and for short range, long range and anti-material rifles.
Not to mention the chopping up of the Biotech skill required to get to the same level of discreteness.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.