Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Skill Group Frustration
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
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 Dainig
QUOTE (Fastball)
It is extremely plausible for a person to be a great athlete who enjoys running, jumping, and climbing, but has never learned to swim.

Really? Most people supplement endurance training with a regular visit to the natatorium.

QUOTE (Fastball)
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.

Actually, creating digital layouts is pretty close to programming.

QUOTE (Fastball)
Just one complaint: a sleazy used care dealer does not deserve leadership.

A sleazy used car dealer qualifies only for con and negotiation - if he had etiquette, he wouldn't be sleazy. nyahnyah.gif

QUOTE (Fastball)
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.

Palming also covers concealed carry... never done by runner, eh?


QUOTE (Fastball)
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.

City maps are much easier to read than outdoor maps... and if you can't read the latter, you can't really navigate.

QUOTE (Fastball)
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.

It is pretty much the only way.
Personally, I'm even thinking of ways to limit specializations.
Fastball
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

Really? Most people supplement endurance training with a regular visit to the natatorium.


I have met some people who have never swam, even more who have never done anything more than waded in a pool , and many who don't know proper stroke techniques, yet they are all good athletes (Granted, most of them probably don't know how to climb very well). I suspect the tendency not to know how to swim is even greater in the Sixth world.

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

A sleazy used car dealer qualifies only for con and negotiation - if he had etiquette, he wouldn't be sleazy. nyahnyah.gif


Okay, I've changed my complaint: a Han Solo type ruffian may have no etiquette but is still an inspiring leader.

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

Palming also covers concealed carry... never done by runner, eh?


I didn't mean to imply it wasn't useful, merely that it doesn't seem to be a good fit. Even your typical ganger may have learned to hide, sneak, and follow, but never had to worry about hiding a gun or stealing discreetly.


Thanks for the input.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Fastball @ Apr 5 2007, 12:20 PM)
Even your typical ganger may have learned to hide, sneak, and follow, but never had to worry about hiding a gun or stealing discreetly.

Actually, shoplifting is quite something to be expected from a ganger.
Chunky_Salsa
Come on you guys, didn't you know one of SR4's biggest selling points was to simplify the game?

wink.gif

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

As someone who sold cars briefly and who knows people who sell cars I'd say that your general used car salesman does not have the Influence Group. A Sales Manager or a General Manager, or someone aspiring to the above would be working on all aspects, and thus the group. There are leaders on a car lot.

I wonder why everyone likes to whip on used car salesmen, when in fact I find that most people who sell cars, used or new, tend to be far more moral than most of the rest of the people I know.
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
QUOTE (Casazil)
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.

are you insane?

pilot groundcraft is a bloody skill group at a discount making it equal to one skill. do you realise you can pilot a tank, an APC, a motorcycle, a bulldozer, a hovercraft, a car, and a bus all with the same skill???

do you realise you can pilot a helicopter, an airplane, a jet, a blimp, and a hang glider all with the same skill?

that piloting a submarine, a motorboat, a hydrofoil, a yacht, and a battleship are also all the same skill?

that regardless of the many variations on SR4's definition of "anthroform", you can pilot any vehicle that use legs as a means of propulsion, and operate any sort of arm as well?

good grief, man, don't you get it?!?! the pilot skills *are* skill groups, they just get a discount that makes normal skill groups look like a 2 dollar coupon on a 100 dollar meal...

and incidentally, i don't think han solo has con all that high...

"uhhh... we're all fine here, thank you. how are you?"

"hey down there, could you give us a hand with this?"

"look out, he's loose!"
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 smile.gif

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
QUOTE (Fastball)
I was wondering if anybody else finds skill groups a hindrance to the development of realistic characters, and what solutions are being used.
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.

You are thinking realistic as in RL instead of real SR. Think realistic SR and things fall into place.
Catharz Godfoot
QUOTE (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.

Swimming is a great addition to athletic training. Add swimming to your exercise regimen, and you'll see improvement in all areas. And guess what? That's exactly how skill groups work. Yes, you could learn skills individually, but if you learn a number of related skills the synergy will make you better at them all.

I think somebody already said something about computer programming and hardware. In my experience that's true as well. Understanding your hardware will help your programming, and vice-versa.

In effect, if you want to learn a set of related skills you should study them all at once. This is Min/Maxing in real life. In this case Shadowrun accurately reflects a harsh fact of life, which is that you can waste your time by focusing too sharply.

So, is it an unfair and unbalanced mechanic? Yes, if you want to play a sub-optimal character.


There are a number of other problems with skill groups (such as not being able to use other logical skill groupings), but the 'sometimes well-rounded is better' is not necessarily poor design.
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.
lorechaser
QUOTE (ElFenrir @ Apr 5 2007, 07:17 PM)
Sometimes its worth a bit of thought on what you want to spend the points on-groups or seperate skills.
-----------------
Im also a believer in that theyre good for beginners, or simply someone who wants a real generalist.

1. Absolutely. This is a Role-Playing Game. That means that it's equal parts Role-Play and Game. I want a game that rewards me for understanding the rules. I wouldn't complain that the person who knows how build hotels in Monopoly isn't playing the game right. wink.gif And it creates interesting discussions and choices when you consider skill groups vs individual skills, and that makes the game better, imho.

2. Absolutely. Your Sammy is unlikely to buy Firearms 4. Because A. He doesn't really need to use all weapons, just the ones he has and B. He's going to want to be able to put a 5 or a 6, and a specialization in. However he might pick up stealth 2, or electronics 1 if he wants a little bit more flexibility. Skill groups are great for the 1-2 range, as a little bonus.
Jack Kain
Lets look at buying skill groups from a PURE SHADOWRUNNER stand point. Rules for creating anyone other then a shadowrunners aren't relevant.



Cracking Group:
Self explanatory. If your a hacker or technomancer its likely a good deal to buy this group as you'll need ALL of these skills


Electronics Group:
While a programer may not know how to build computer hardware, most engineers can at least put a computer together from the basic parts. Also a good choice for hackers.


Influence Group
Hmm Negotiation, Con, Etiquette and Leadership all in one neat little package. This is the Face group, If your building a Face, you likely need Con, Nego and Etiquette.
One rank may be an exellent choice for almost anyone so you don't have to default on Negotiation, Con or Etiquette


Firearms Group
Now someone said the sammy only needs the skill in the gun he's going to use.
But I don't think thats true, The sammy who's decent in all 3 skills has some better options available.
He's not going to smuggle an assault rifle past a bouncer to follow his team mates into the club.
So maybe he wants pistols.
And maybe he wants to use a sniper rifle for a few wetwork jobs.

Stealth Group
Fairly straight forward, this was designed for Ninja archtype. Perfect for anyone who wants to avoid being seen.

If you buy two skills in the same group its only another 2 BP per rank to get the skill group.

Say you want Pistols 4, Automatics 6. You want pistols for your back up weapon thats a cost of 40 BP.
For 48 BP you could buy Firearms of 4 and then break the group to raise automatics alone to 6.

Min maxing is having an automatics of 6 but no skill in any other firearm. (yeah I'm guilty)
lorechaser
QUOTE (Jack Kain)
Say you want Pistols 4, Automatics 6. You want pistols for your back up weapon thats a cost of 40 BP.
For 48 BP you could buy Firearms of 4 and then break the group to raise automatics alone to 6.

Min maxing is having an automatics of 6 but no skill in any other firearm. (yeah I'm guilty)

1. It's still not clear that breaking a skill group during character creation is allowed. Many people (myself included) feel that's not how the rules are intended.

2. In theory, a sammy needs all the options.

In practice, he needs nothing but automatics. Need to smuggle a gun in? Use a machine pistols. Need a sniper rifle? Why? The Alpha does nearly as well. Max range of 550. That's good enough for most everything.

If you're in a position where you need a truly skilled sniper, you aren't going to have the sammy that's just okay with it doing it. If not, the alpha can work just fine. There may be a couple outside cases where you'd need a true skill in sniping. They are, I would argue, rare enough not to make it worth taking. It might sometimes be nice to be able to snipe from 1500, rather than 550, but "nice" and "spend 16 extra bp" aren't quite the same. wink.gif Besides, that's what skillwires are for.

And how often, really, does your character find himself without his weapon of choice? The only time that happens consistently is when the GM is out to take away your stuff anyway. You may have one "you find yourself captured and tied up" adventure every blue moon. When you do, you're scavenging for weapons anyway. If the GM says "No, sorry, every guard only has a pistol" then 1. You're only facing pistols, so you're not that bad off, 2. You can default, and 3. Your GM is mad at you for not taking pistols, and is punishing you. If everyone you face is a pistol adept with super warhawks, just look at the GM and say "Look, Bob, are you mad that I only took Automatics?" If he says "Yes, I'm showing you why it's a problem" then you should make sure he's doing the same for the rest of the party in equal parts. "Well, the mage didn't take stealth, so be sure to put him in a position to need that, okay? And the physad has no negotiation, so make sure he's our point man next run."



Demerzel
QUOTE (The FAQ)
When can you break up a skill group into its component skills? Can you break it up during character creation? Can I break apart a skill group in order to buy a specialization for one of the skills?

You can break apart a skill group whenever you want--as long as the GM allows it. We advise against breaking apart skill groups during character creation in order to keep it simple and counter min-maxing. Any time you improve a single skill within a skill group or add a specialization to one of those skills, that skill group no longer exists.


Just becuase it came up...
PBTHHHHT
QUOTE (Catharz Godfoot)
QUOTE (Fastball @ Apr 5 2007, 04:36 AM)
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.

Swimming is a great addition to athletic training. Add swimming to your exercise regimen, and you'll see improvement in all areas. And guess what? That's exactly how skill groups work. Yes, you could learn skills individually, but if you learn a number of related skills the synergy will make you better at them all.

In SR terms, I can envision it like gangers (and other inner city folks), there are situations where growing up they don't swim even though they are excellent athletic shape. This is due to not ever being in a pool before because of the rarity/lack of opportunity.
Fastball
QUOTE (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."

Actually, my question was prompted by a desire to justify every particular skill and ability a character has, based upon their background.

So sometimes, yes, it makes perfect sense that a well-trained athlete would simply add swimming to his trainging regime. Other times, however, it might make no sense. Or conversely, maybe the character has never trained on the climbing wall and should only have running, gymnastics, and swimming.

There are plenty of times where skill groups are useful; I was just curious if anybody had attempted to make house rules to cover those instances where they penalize players for trying to make the skills fit their character, rather than making the character fit the skills.

I've always looked at skill groups as skills that you couldn't really improve separately. Take firearms, for example. Firearms is a perfect example. It doesn't make sense to have a character with 4+ in automatics who has no more skill with a pistol or rifle than some schmuck off the street.

This post has helped me refine a view to see cases where they are simply beneficial. Whereas before I focused on the fact that a software programmer might have no clue about hardware, now I can see the justification in the group, because a software programmer may very well be better if s/he also studies hardware and might have an easier time learning it.

Maybe I'll just stick with the "naturally gifted" theory. Sure, the super athlete may not have swam before, but the first time he does, he's going to be really good. It isn't a perfect explanation, but it's probably as decent a solution as possible.
Narmio
In any RPG there are going to be boundary cases that are difficult to emulate because of the way the game abstracts things. In order to allow those boundary cases, you'd have to make the other 99% of the game more complicated.

It's not going to ruin your Lit major GPA if you can't work that swimming nonproficiency into the rich tapestry that is your backstory. It's hardly even going to show up all campaign.

If one of these abstractions is actually causing a problem in your games, houserule around it for your purposes. If it's not, and you're just looking for places where there are cracks in the rules, find a new hobby.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (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

A per skill-rank BP discount presents certain issues. Either it changes the BP cost balance, it forces one to calculate fractional BP costs, or it forces one to keep tract of special conditional modifiers. At a -1BP per skill-rank for a 3 skill group one gets a total cost of 9BP per 3 skill-ranks instead of the 10BP per 3 skill-ranks of a three-skill skillgroup. This difference isn't much, but it adds up to a couple of extra contacts or some more resources or an extra spell or two, more if they use multiple groups this way. The big problem is the 4 skillers. A flat -1BP gives modifier of 12BP per 4skill-ranks, which makes the 4 and that extra 2 BP does add up to lost stat points and generally lower skills while a -2BP modifier produces an impressive 8BP per 4 skill-ranks and 6BP per 3 skill-ranks.

Cain
QUOTE

Cracking Group:
Self explanatory. If your a hacker or technomancer its likely a good deal to buy this group as you'll need ALL of these skills

Yeah, but he's highly unlikely to buy them as a group. Since groups are capped at 4, it makes more sense to raise two of them to 5, or one to 6, since you'l be dependning on that skill so much more. If you're a decker or otaku, you're *less* likely to buy the group, not more. That's one of the problems I have with skill groups: they build really nice generalists, but suck for specialists.

At any event, to answer the OP's question, I suggest that the characters in question buy an Incompetence in the particular skill. Yes, technically you'll have bought the skill; but the Incompetence will keep you from using it, and give you BP's to boot. If the character later wants to use the skill, he can buy off the flaw at the normal cost.
Grinder
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE

Cracking Group:
Self explanatory. If your a hacker or technomancer its likely a good deal to buy this group as you'll need ALL of these skills

Yeah, but he's highly unlikely to buy them as a group. Since groups are capped at 4, it makes more sense to raise two of them to 5, or one to 6, since you'l be dependning on that skill so much more. If you're a decker or otaku, you're *less* likely to buy the group, not more. That's one of the problems I have with skill groups: they build really nice generalists, but suck for specialists.

You still can remove the caps with a houserule.
Wasabi
If playing a very long term game groups allow more growth into a character. While a hacking-6 char could get to hacking-9 for [(7+8+9)*2=]48 Karma the cracking group to 6 would cost [25+30=] 55 Karma giving the cracking group character a slightly more expensive 6/6/6 build while the specialist had a 4/4/9 build.

I suppose the usefulness of this would depend on how much EW and Cybercombat the runners' situations require. All in all I'd take the specialist as well I suppose with high Edge and both the Home Ground and Codeslinger qualities specified for that they were WEAKEST in. [Something EW related for a hacker, Something Hacking related for a smuggler/drone rigger.]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012