I never liked the idea of splitting up athletics into it's component skills. There are so many place to put your points already, do we really need this too? So my plan is this:
1. Make a general skill, Athletics, which just has all the skills in the Athletics group.
2. Do away with Gymnastics dodge, for balance reasons.

Any other problems you can see?

I like it...

Apart from a lack of differentiation between characters (world-class everysports athletes), giving all that stuff out for 4BP/skill level seems very cost-efficient.

If you are the GM "fix" stuff by handing out more BP without increasing the various spending caps.

Indeed it would be cost efficient, but no more so than being able to Drive every ground vehicle ever invented or to come. Or fly any Aircraft, etc.

I think agility or strength at 10 is more of an issue than everyone being able to swim or climb a fence for a little less investment.

This is basically a decision you can make for any Group, in either direction; you definitely should do it if it's better for your table. You see examples of this in the RAW, after all (there's an optional rule to break Enchanting into a group of subskills, I think?). We definitely talk about the logic behind the Pilot skills or the Firearms skills all the time, and then there's the fuzzy Social skills, etc.

I think athletic-type skills are one that gets me. In every game system where they're differentiated, it annoys me, and I want to lump them together. Not only does it feel like it's charging the player extra, it feels pretty crappy to them, too, to have someone who is, say, a world-class swimmer who's hopelessly inept at, for example, climbing or running.

Micheal Phelps might be an Olympic swimmer, not an Olympic runner or climber, but I think he'd probably be much better at running a sprint or a marathon than joe average who does it for kicks. If he was defaulting, he'd probably get 4 dice, 5 at the most, whereas a relatively fit joe average would likely have 6 dice from having 3 in the relevant attribute and 3 in the relevant skill.


In my opinion, basic athletic things like running, climbing, swimming, should be lumped together in one skill. You can't get to be world-class at one without being so fit and good at moving your body that you could be crap at the others. And I think it's not fair to a player to make them pay extra for all of them.

If you're going to do it, just acknowledge that it's being done for game balance reasons, not to fit "reality" where fitness and athletics are concerned. Down that road lies only madness, frustration, and endless house-ruling.

ShadowDragon, you're mixing up Attributes and Skills. Phelps would be okay at running because of Bod and Str, not because Swimming skill is related. And how many people do you know who learned to not-drown by practicing climbing and jogging?

Totally, Critias: it's not about logic. If the table wants it for simplicity or balance, they should do it.

I actually do this in my home games. "Athletics" as the base skill, with Swimming, Running, etc as specializations.




-k

Athletics is probably one of the most sensible skill groups to turn into a single skill. I see no balance issues with it whatsoever.

I usually just default on them all anyway, and cyberware is great at boosting most of these skills in particular. You don't even have to change those rules, just apply the listed bonus to the right tests (Climbing, Jumping, etc.).

Regarding the OP's suggestion, as long as Gymnastics Dodge were off the table combining the Athletics group into one skill seems a fairly balanced house rule to me.

With regards ShadowDragon's hypothetical situation of a race between Michael Phelps and Joe average, I have 2 comments:
1) Not sure on Michael Phelp's background, but if he did any running/track and field in high school or whatever, it could be said he has Running or even the entire Athletics group at at least 1 anyway.
2) At skill 3, Joe Average is a "professional" level runner, even if his attribute is just average. So yeah, a Michael Phelps who has never run in his life will do pretty well at running due to his high level of general fitness, but perhaps not so well against a professional runner with average raw abilities.

I like this way, in addition to the removal of Gymnastics Dodge weirdness. Most builds I see treat Athletics as one "skill" anyway ("get 1 level of Athletics"), but it costs 10/level instead of 4 / level for something that (probably) is used a lot less than Stealth, Combat, Magic, Hacking or Social skills.

Yeah, this happens at my table as well. Almost every character who invests in any of the skills gets Athletics Group 1 or 2 to start with, and very few ever go beyond that.

But then, only a very few would even QUALIFY TO GO ABOVE THAT anyways... A level of 1 or 2 is the best most individuals ever aspire to. How many Professional Grade Athletes do you really know.

2 maybe. Agreed.

Edit: actually, if we limit it to higher than 2 in one of the component skills, I probably know 4 or 5 people that would qualify.

Which is kind of my point.

Many players choose levels of skills that make absolutely no sense in regards to the backgrounds of the relevant characters. Who cares what the rules allow you to get away with; the reality of the character is FAR MORE important. Most skills would be rating 1-2, with maybe a 3 or a 4 thrown in on a skill or two. And before anyone actually asks, YES, most of the skills my character's take start out in the 3 or lower range, with most of them 2's or lower. It only makes sense. I do have a few characters where it makes sense for there to be higher ratings, but they are few and far between.

*shrug* Runners aren't normal people.

I agree with you that the skills on a sheet ideally should reflect character background.

But even really strange, seemingly arbitrary, combinations of skill can occur in real life...

So their stats should not match their background? If you presented me with a Background of "Spec Ops Sniper" and the only skill you had to back that up was a 6 in Longarms, I would disallow it on principle, because actually filling that role takes more than just firearms expertise in a single cateogry of weapon, as well as a lot of various support skills. For me, your stats (attributes, qualities, skills, etc.) should match your background.

Now, if that character had a Firearms 3-4 (longarms at the least), with athletics 2-3 (Running, climbing and swimming at least), stealth 2-3 (Inflitration at least), the outdoors group 2-3 (or survival and tracking skills at least), Perception of at least 3, some close combat skills 2-3 (Blades and Unarmed at least), and some supporting Knowledge Skills (Ballistics comes to mind), then I would see that you were at least trying to fill out your concept with appropriate skills for the role.

Just because a Runner is not Joe normal does not remove the necessity of a solid background concept and appropriate stats to match it.
A Savant with a Rifle does not a Sniper Make.

*Shrug*

I would tend to agree with TJ.

I just started up a game (havnt GM'ed in...a LONG time) and I already rejected several runners that my players put forth. In my mind you need a solid background and the character to match. Once you have those I can build a story for you, but if you tell me you were a big game hunter, got in some trouble and now your a Sniper for hire, and you have no outdoors skills whatsoever...well...my fireplace always needs kindling

Shadowing 5, Running 5

...that must be the requirements for being a great shadowrunner, right?

.....you cant see it but my face is in my palm....

Nobody said that, TJ. My clear implication was that their *background* should match exceptional stats.

You crack me up sometimes, SnowRaven.

You are entirely correct in that their stats should be a reflection of their background, Yerameyahu. They should be, but rarely are. ESPECIALLY here on Dumpshock with the vast majority of characters put forth (Thought experiments notwithstanding). I believe the sentiment was/is "I'll just fill all the glaring holes in after the game starts." Even you are guilty of that, from what you have said. Most are. And you don't have to say it, nor do the others. It is quite evident in the character critiques that are offerred to those asking questions. How often do you see someone ask "Hey, why did you do this" or "Hey, what is the concept?" It always comes down to "Dude, you screwed up and to get the maximum bang for your buck just do this, and then purchase the holes in play."

It is the disconnect from making a living, breathing character and a collection of stats that tries to obtain the highest dicepool "in their specialty," but has absolutely no grounding in the background of the character. And yes, I know the normal comeback to that is "that any charater can be playable, because background and "Fluff" is just that. Any character concept can support any combination of stats."

However, I do not agree with that because it is blatantly not the case in the majority of circumstances. When asked why characters have stats that are so out of whack with the stated background of the character, the vast number of responses is "because the game system allows me to do that, and I would be stupid not to take advantage of that. Besides, My character is the Best of the Best of the Best, and that is just how it is." Never mind that the rest of their concept is on the cutting room floor because they could not afford to purchase the other supporting skills to make the concept work correctly. Concept is sacrificed for Large Dice Pools. No where is the decision making process centered in the character's background, at that point it has become a numbers exercise. I find that highly distasteful.

But it would be hard to justify someone being that good at something. He would have to be some kind of elite professional criminal, the kind who deals with violence and betrayal on a regular basis, who works under the table doing dangerous jobs like corporate espionage and sabotage. How many shadowrunners would have that kind of background?

What did I say about glaring holes? :/

Not that it's relevant; here, I *only* said that there are plenty of reasons shadowrunners would have athletics scores above 2-3. Nothing else.

It's laudable to complain against bad roleplaying, but I'm just not sure who you're arguing against. Certainly not me.

--
Hahaha, Glyph.