Maybe you could just add a Quality that allows a player to go over the normal skill cap but at double the cost. Have the Quality effect one skill and you would need to have the Aptitude quality as a prerequisite.
I like the idea of limiting successes to skill rank x 2 with Edge successes being able to add on top of that.
Full Version: Max in a skill?
| QUOTE (Xenith @ Sep 9 2005, 03:00 PM) |
| Hate to call you on something, but people with ADD are not less intelligent by any means. In fact they are exceptional with math, memory, as well as various other academic areas. They tend to have a problem with sitting still and paying attention or focusing without putting effort into it. So an ADD individual would have a lower intuition... if anything at all. |
You are half way there. ADD and intellegence are more independant factors. Part of the reason is that ADD is symptomatic, and as such is diagnosed for a wide range of underlying causes. In a simplistic view: There are ADD people that are just none to bright. They tend towards violence without help, and even with help life is seriously stacked against them. Then there is Average Joe ADD, and he's going to have tough time but he is likely to muddle through life with some unhappy bits, usually socially but often professionally. And finally there is the "smart" ADD people. These folks often are able to compensate for a lot of the shortcomings of their condition. In compensating they also are forced to learn some really neat things. Like being able to function while their attention is split 2 or more ways. Sitting in class reading an unrelated book while fully learning what is being taught and read, and perhaps carrying on a 3rd train of thought. Or more. Some have been shown to be able to listen to multiple simultaneous conversations in a noisy party.
But the compensating isn't free, the compensating isn't complete, the aquired skills come with a nasty downside (what lead to them to start with), and on the whole i'd have to call it a wash at best. I don't like wishing on a star, but i'd trade it away if i could.
BTW Attention Deficit Disorder is actually a bit of a misnomer, many ADD people focus MORE intensely. It is right there on the diagnosis checklist. But it requires something that provides enough stimulis to satisfy and hold their attention. If it doesn't then they are driven to find the stimulis, whereever. That is where stimulants come in, take them and they they slow down the drive by providing the brain stimulation.
"ADD is because the world moves too damn slow."
P.S. I personally have a very strong intuition, but it isn't something that is the opposite of logic at all. So i don't know, that is likely kind of a wash too. Given the tendancy to either be able to split attention or become totaly absorbed by something i don't think SR Intuition is really influenced a net either way.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| no, you're not. the problem that FrankTrollman stated is that attributes count for too much. you're attempting to say that the problem doesn't exist, by redefining the terms. i'm trying to solve the problem as-stated, partly because i think it's worthwhile to point out some of the problems with FrankTrollman's solution, and partly because i don't buy into your attempted negation of the problem. |
Frank came to that conclusion based on the assumption that the Skills and the Attributes should match costs. It's hard to follow him to track that stuff down because blows out chaft flares like crazy.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
thing is that if you increase the base attribute by 1 you increase all dice pools that use said attribute by 1. this can be many more then a similar increase in skill groups or single skills  therefor its more cost effective... |
Still doesn't answer the questions. It seems that the parameters keep being changed, but I am game.
Lets take the same example, but change it to Agility and add Pistols and Dodge. (The low Agility is because they have athritis....
)How much does it cost to raise Pistols from 2 to 3? 3 to 4?
How much does it cost to raise Dodge from 2 to 3? 3 to 4?
How much does it cost to raise Agility from 3 to 4? 4 to 5?
By the by...still lazy...someone calculate for me
| QUOTE (snowRaven) |
| First of all the explanation of what things represent takes precedence over contradictory and badly designed rules, imo. Explanation points to intent, Rules point to functionality. |
If you choose to read it that way, fine. *shrug* Just don't expect things to jive.
| QUOTE (blakkie @ Sep 9 2005, 04:55 PM) | ||
Frank came to that conclusion based on the assumption that the Skills and the Attributes should match costs. It's hard to follow him to track that stuff down because blows out chaft flares like crazy. |
Um... That's not even grammatical. But I'll assume that you are saying that the statment:
"In a point system for a game, you should get what you pay for."
is not a true statement. Is that correct? You seem to be both angry at and dissmissive of people who are saying "You should get what you pay for". If you disagree, what exactly do you think people should get, once they have paid their points?
-Frank
| QUOTE (Autarkis) |
| Just because I am lazy, can you please do the math for me to show that raising a skill from 2 to 3 is more expensive than raising an attribute from 4 to 5? 3 to 4? Or even raising a skill from 3 to 4 versus raising an attribute from 4 to 5? 3 to 4? |
what hobgoblin said, but since you are lazy:
Joe Runner has Agility 4 and Firearms Group 2.
Raising Pistols to 3 (thereby breaking the group) costs 6 karma.
Result: +1 to 1 Skill for 6 karma = 6 karma/dice.
Raising the Firearms Group to 3 (increasing three skills) costs 15 karma.
Result: +1 to 3 Skills for 15 karma = 5 karma/dice.
Raising Agility to 5 (effectively increasing 18 skills) costs 15 karma.
Result: +1 to 18 skills for 15 karma = less than 1 karma/die.
Even assuming that Joe Runner will never use more 7 skills based off of Agility, he still gets twice as much for his karma points.
And that's the example where raising the single skill actually has a big benefit in cost. If Joe Runner had Pistols 5 and Agility 4, it would cost him 12 karma to raise either. If the player opts to raise Pistols at this time, it would greatly surprise me.
And as for skill groups... only at ratings 1 or 2 will it be sensible to raise the group instead of the attribute, if you are short on karma. As soon as you hit 3, you are better off maxing out your attribute first (unless you're a troll and raising strength or body, or an ork raising body, then a case can be made for raising the skill group).
Attributes(2 to 7): 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21.
SkillGroup(2 to 6): 10, 15, 20, 25, 30.
Single skill(2 to 7): 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14.
It's easy to see that skill groups are very rarely even worth what they cost until your attribute is maxed out. And for single skills it is often better to get the attribute first, since the attribute adds to so many skills and other tests.
Result: Many runners with high attributes ands low skills, and most of the rest with medium to high attributes and a few maxed-out skills.
But it also matters what your playing style is.
If you are playing rarely, and only use one character for around 5-10 runs, then putting your points in the single skills you need can be a wise choice.
If you are playing a longer campaign, and aim to use your character for many runs, then abilities is the way to go - no doubt about it.
Skill groups you might just not bother with - except for during char gen, where they can be a good way to get package deals. If you have the skill group and ability at the same level (eg. 4, since that's logical for a starting runner.), you can raise the attribute AND one skill for the same karma it would've cost you to raise the group...
Sinking to picking on a typo again Frank? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Go find someone else to blow smoke and illogical linking to truisms at.
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||
If you choose to read it that way, fine. *shrug* Just don't expect things to jive. |
No matter how it's read, it doesn't jive.
Either the explanation of what constitues an attribute and a skill is off, or the game mechanics are off, or both are off.
You think the way things work makes the text explaining what stuff is wrong, and I think that the game mechanics fail to do what they should.
True, it's easier to ignore what the text says and either not bother to explain what the difference between skills and attributes are, or change it to whatever you feel it is.
But that doesn't solve the problems I have with the cost of improving skills and attributes, and that many(if not most) players will have starting characters that are among the best in the world in various fields. Therefore, I am inclined to viewing the system as unsatisfactory, and the fact that it doesn't reflect the descriptions just adds to that inclination.
The bottom line is that we have three things describing attributes and skills:
1) Flavor text and explanations of what they are.
2) Game mechanics of the usage of attributes and skills.
3) Karmic costs of raising attributes and skills.
And none of these 3 correspond well with the two others, though 1 and 2 come close.
| QUOTE (snowRaven @ Sep 9 2005, 05:29 PM) |
| Either the explanation of what constitues an attribute and a skill is off, or the game mechanics are off, or both are off. |
... or your interpretation is selectively narrowed.
| QUOTE |
| You think the way things work makes the text explaining what stuff is wrong, and I think that the game mechanics fail to do what they should. |
Nope. I think you are excluding the middle.
| QUOTE |
| The bottom line is that we have three things describing attributes and skills: 1) Flavor text and explanations of what they are. 2) Game mechanics of the usage of attributes and skills. 3) Karmic costs of raising attributes and skills. |
.... and again.
| QUOTE (snowRaven @ Sep 9 2005, 07:19 PM) | ||
what hobgoblin said, but since you are lazy: Joe Runner has Agility 4 and Firearms Group 2. Raising Pistols to 3 (thereby breaking the group) costs 6 karma. Result: +1 to 1 Skill for 6 karma = 6 karma/dice. Raising the Firearms Group to 3 (increasing three skills) costs 15 karma. Result: +1 to 3 Skills for 15 karma = 5 karma/dice. Raising Agility to 5 (effectively increasing 18 skills) costs 15 karma. Result: +1 to 18 skills for 15 karma = less than 1 karma/die. Even assuming that Joe Runner will never use more 7 skills based off of Agility, he still gets twice as much for his karma points. And that's the example where raising the single skill actually has a big benefit in cost. If Joe Runner had Pistols 5 and Agility 4, it would cost him 12 karma to raise either. If the player opts to raise Pistols at this time, it would greatly surprise me. And as for skill groups... only at ratings 1 or 2 will it be sensible to raise the group instead of the attribute, if you are short on karma. As soon as you hit 3, you are better off maxing out your attribute first (unless you're a troll and raising strength or body, or an ork raising body, then a case can be made for raising the skill group). Attributes(2 to 7): 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21. SkillGroup(2 to 6): 10, 15, 20, 25, 30. Single skill(2 to 7): 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14. It's easy to see that skill groups are very rarely even worth what they cost until your attribute is maxed out. And for single skills it is often better to get the attribute first, since the attribute adds to so many skills and other tests. Result: Many runners with high attributes ands low skills, and most of the rest with medium to high attributes and a few maxed-out skills. But it also matters what your playing style is. If you are playing rarely, and only use one character for around 5-10 runs, then putting your points in the single skills you need can be a wise choice. If you are playing a longer campaign, and aim to use your character for many runs, then abilities is the way to go - no doubt about it. Skill groups you might just not bother with - except for during char gen, where they can be a good way to get package deals. If you have the skill group and ability at the same level (eg. 4, since that's logical for a starting runner.), you can raise the attribute AND one skill for the same karma it would've cost you to raise the group... |
Good point, but you still didn't answer my question, you altered it.
So using your math:
Dodge or Pistols from 2 to 3 would be 6 Karma
Dodge or Pistols from 3 to 4 would be 8 Karma
Agility from 2 to 3 would be 9 Karma
Agility from 3 to 4 would be 12 Karma
Now...We have player A and B with Agility 3 ,Dodge 2, and Pistol 2. To raise both Pistols and Dodge together OR Agility alone would be 12 Karma. Now, let us assume 3 karma a run (or session...whatever) Now, Player A decides he is going to wait to raise his Agility to get +1 to both skills. Player B decides he is going to raise Dodge and then Pistols (keeping it alphabetical.)
Player A goes without any +1 dice for 4 runs (or sessions.)
Player B goes without any +1 dice to Dodge for 2 runs and without +1 dice to Pistols for 4 runs.
So let us then take a look at Player A and B after the 4th session.
Player A: Agility 4, Dodge 2, and Pistols 2
Player B: Agility 3, Dodge 3, and Pistols 3
Based on the assumption that "Attributes are the cat's meow", Player A agains decides to raise his Agility from 4 to 5 (15 Karma.) This will be 5 runs (or sessions.)
Player B, decides he wants to raise Dodge to 4 and Pistols to 4. This will be 16 Karma. Basically a skill one skill in 3 runs(sessions) and the other in another 3 runs (sessions) for a total of 6 runs (sessions).
Or, he could wait 4 runs and get Agility 4 and another 3 runs to get Dodge 4.
The end dice pool are the same, but each player has a different dice pool at different times. We can even do this again with skill groups, with Player A using skill groups and Player B not. Player B will have higher dice in his for his weapon of choice while Player A will have lower dice, but in more areas.
In finance (and in a lesser extent statistics) there is a caveat of "with all things being equal." It is even prevalent on this server where people say "Attributes are too broken! All starting characters will start with 4's and 5's in attributes" to "Attributes are broken! All starting characters will start with 1's and 2's in their attributes and have buy high skills at creation!"
<shrug> I don't even think we will see eye to eye on this or one way or the other sway our opinions. I can say, from playing in games that use Attributes plus Skills, it may seem unbalanced but the increasing cost to raise either and the "not development" between gaming sessions as you horde your exp/karma/character development points/hero points normally are factors in causing this to be a non-issue.
Now I have to nap because I typed too much and actually had to do some math..... 
I get that you believe I'm reading selectively, blakkie.
But exactly what do you mean I'm excluding by saying I'm excluding the middle?
Also, let me bring up an example:
Using your view that attributes are more inherent and learned ability, similar to a very broad skill group, shouldn't Attributes be the most expensive to increase with Karma, followed by skill groups and then single skills, finally adding a specialization?
Even disregarding the explanation ofd attributes and skills, shouldn't that which gives the most bonuses cost the most, for the sake of game-balance?
But exactly what do you mean I'm excluding by saying I'm excluding the middle?
Also, let me bring up an example:
Using your view that attributes are more inherent and learned ability, similar to a very broad skill group, shouldn't Attributes be the most expensive to increase with Karma, followed by skill groups and then single skills, finally adding a specialization?
Even disregarding the explanation ofd attributes and skills, shouldn't that which gives the most bonuses cost the most, for the sake of game-balance?
| QUOTE (Autarkis @ Sep 10 2005, 02:20 AM) |
| Good point, but you still didn't answer my question, you altered it. [...] The end dice pool are the same, but each player has a different dice pool at different times. We can even do this again with skill groups, with Player A using skill groups and Player B not. Player B will have higher dice in his for his weapon of choice while Player A will have lower dice, but in more areas. In finance (and in a lesser extent statistics) there is a caveat of "with all things being equal." It is even prevalent on this server where people say "Attributes are too broken! All starting characters will start with 4's and 5's in attributes" to "Attributes are broken! All starting characters will start with 1's and 2's in their attributes and have buy high skills at creation!" <shrug> I don't even think we will see eye to eye on this or one way or the other sway our opinions. I can say, from playing in games that use Attributes plus Skills, it may seem unbalanced but the increasing cost to raise either and the "not development" between gaming sessions as you horde your exp/karma/character development points/hero points normally are factors in causing this to be a non-issue. Now I have to nap because I typed too much and actually had to do some math..... |
You have a very valid point there Autarkis - there is a time benefit to raising skills one at a time over raising the attribute, and that can be an extremely important factor. Especially early in the character's career.
I admit I did not fully take that into account. The added benefit to spending the karma as soon as you can, is that you can spread it over skills linked to several attributes - so the exact benefits to attribute over skill aren't as clear cut as I suggested unless you sit on a pile of karma. For short term campaigns it is even more beneficial raising skills, taking # of runs into account.
Skill groups, however, still remain a bad idea since you have to save up even longer to raise them and might as well raise the attribute and one skill in the same time.
(And yes, I altered your question, but you based it on an alteration of what I was saying anyway
)Oh, and even though this way of thinking evens out the ability vs. skill in the early stages, it still keeps the fact that once a few skills are maxed out in an attribute, players are likely to start maxing out the relevant attributes instead - resulting in an even more uniform 'mold' for each type of runner than we had under SR3.
But I have to agree with you in part - some of these problems are either neglible in the beginning of a runner-career, or look more serious due to the low caps of skills and attributes.
So I am re-evaluating parts of my reasoning, but my main two concerns are still intact: cost of groups, skills and attributes in regard to their usage, and starting power level compared to top power level (which can only partly be solved by reducing BP for creation). Oh, as well as the near-impossibility of fairly converting SR3 characters and npcs to SR4.
Blakkie, you don't get to walk away from this with flippant comments and insulting tirades alone. What do you actually mean?
I'll use only short words, so don't try to act like the President's Press Secretary about this:
My claim is, and has been, that when you pay points, you should get what you pay for. That is, when you pay more you should get more. When you pay less, you should get less.
There. Nothing more than a single syllabel. Tell me exactly what your problem is with this statement or just stop posting to this thread altogether. We are in put up or shut up mode now.
----
Autarkis, that's a bad example. Dodge is actually based on Reaction. And it has funky mechanics in which it often isn't added at all, and sometimes is added twice. If you want to talk about Agility, use Agility Skills.
Say, Automatics, Lockpicking, Gymnastics, or Infiltration. These are all great skills. And Agility adds to all of them. An attribute goes from one to six. A Skill goes from zero to six. Leaving aside for the moment that there are some very weird effects that happen when you start with different amounts of BP in an attribute or skill, let's look at the Karma/die of attributes and skills, starting with the minimum possible BP investment (which is to say, no Skill and an attribute of 1):
First, the cost of skills:
Skill Value: Karma Cost: Karma/Die:
1 : 4 : 2
2 : 4 : 4
3 : 6 : 6
4 : 8 : 8
5 : 10 : 10
6 : 12 : 12
Note that the first die is worth double, because you otherwise have a -1 die defaulting penalty.
Now, the cost of Skill Groups:
Skill Value: Karma Cost: Karma/Die:
1 : 10 : 5
2 : 10 : 10
3 : 15 : 15
4 : 20 : 20
5 : 25 : 25
6 : 30 : 30
Now, the cost of attributes. This is a little funky because you will care about a variable number of skills but we'll write the table out as if only one mattered:
2 : 6 : 6
3 : 9 : 9
4 : 12 : 12
5 : 15 : 15
6 : 18 : 18
So what do we notice? First of all, the cost of raising an attibute is never more than the cost of getting level 4 of your skill group. And it's better than the fourth point of a skill group. Any Skill Group. Secondly, if that attribute is adding to just 2 skills that you give a damn about, it's always a better deal per die than adding your 5th or 6th point to a single skill. If it's an attribute like Agility or Magic that could plausibly add to four or even six skills that you really care about, it's a better deal per die to buy the sixth point than it is to buy the second point of any single skill.
Heck, if it's an attribute like Magic that adds to two of your skill groups, it's a better deal to add your 6th point to the attribute than to buy your second point of the skill groups (18 karma for a +1 to everything instead of 20). And that's holding aside the fact that these attributes actually do things that the skills do not - like allow you to summon more powerful spirits or cast more powerful spells wihtout taking physical drain.
That skills are a worse deal than attributes is a given. The math has been done on other threads, and now here it is again on this thread.
So back to my original point: Why is it a problem to want different choices of point expenditure to give roughly equal bonuses?
-Frank
I'll use only short words, so don't try to act like the President's Press Secretary about this:
My claim is, and has been, that when you pay points, you should get what you pay for. That is, when you pay more you should get more. When you pay less, you should get less.
There. Nothing more than a single syllabel. Tell me exactly what your problem is with this statement or just stop posting to this thread altogether. We are in put up or shut up mode now.
----
Autarkis, that's a bad example. Dodge is actually based on Reaction. And it has funky mechanics in which it often isn't added at all, and sometimes is added twice. If you want to talk about Agility, use Agility Skills.
Say, Automatics, Lockpicking, Gymnastics, or Infiltration. These are all great skills. And Agility adds to all of them. An attribute goes from one to six. A Skill goes from zero to six. Leaving aside for the moment that there are some very weird effects that happen when you start with different amounts of BP in an attribute or skill, let's look at the Karma/die of attributes and skills, starting with the minimum possible BP investment (which is to say, no Skill and an attribute of 1):
First, the cost of skills:
Skill Value: Karma Cost: Karma/Die:
1 : 4 : 2
2 : 4 : 4
3 : 6 : 6
4 : 8 : 8
5 : 10 : 10
6 : 12 : 12
Note that the first die is worth double, because you otherwise have a -1 die defaulting penalty.
Now, the cost of Skill Groups:
Skill Value: Karma Cost: Karma/Die:
1 : 10 : 5
2 : 10 : 10
3 : 15 : 15
4 : 20 : 20
5 : 25 : 25
6 : 30 : 30
Now, the cost of attributes. This is a little funky because you will care about a variable number of skills but we'll write the table out as if only one mattered:
2 : 6 : 6
3 : 9 : 9
4 : 12 : 12
5 : 15 : 15
6 : 18 : 18
So what do we notice? First of all, the cost of raising an attibute is never more than the cost of getting level 4 of your skill group. And it's better than the fourth point of a skill group. Any Skill Group. Secondly, if that attribute is adding to just 2 skills that you give a damn about, it's always a better deal per die than adding your 5th or 6th point to a single skill. If it's an attribute like Agility or Magic that could plausibly add to four or even six skills that you really care about, it's a better deal per die to buy the sixth point than it is to buy the second point of any single skill.
Heck, if it's an attribute like Magic that adds to two of your skill groups, it's a better deal to add your 6th point to the attribute than to buy your second point of the skill groups (18 karma for a +1 to everything instead of 20). And that's holding aside the fact that these attributes actually do things that the skills do not - like allow you to summon more powerful spirits or cast more powerful spells wihtout taking physical drain.
That skills are a worse deal than attributes is a given. The math has been done on other threads, and now here it is again on this thread.
So back to my original point: Why is it a problem to want different choices of point expenditure to give roughly equal bonuses?
-Frank
so groups in the long run isnt cost effective. but when your rolling up a new char, what then? so you want someone to be good, but not perfect in all areas of firearms use. grab the firearms group at some level.
i dont think the group system is designed to work in the long run but more as a tool to help when making a char. rather then looking over a long list of skills and picking out the ones you need, your just grabbing the groups that covers the areas you want the character to know stuff in.
and allso its less to enter onto the sheet
as for the time aspect, thats under GM's control. the amount of karma given out pr run will decide if the player goes for attributes or skills.
i dont think the group system is designed to work in the long run but more as a tool to help when making a char. rather then looking over a long list of skills and picking out the ones you need, your just grabbing the groups that covers the areas you want the character to know stuff in.
and allso its less to enter onto the sheet
as for the time aspect, thats under GM's control. the amount of karma given out pr run will decide if the player goes for attributes or skills.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| i dont think the group system is designed to work in the long run but more as a tool to help when making a char. rather then looking over a long list of skills and picking out the ones you need, your just grabbing the groups that covers the areas you want the character to know stuff in. and allso its less to enter onto the sheet as for the time aspect, thats under GM's control. the amount of karma given out pr run will decide if the player goes for attributes or skills. |
If that's the only use for skill groups, to get package deals at char gen, then it's badly designed and can be removed entirely, imo.
Skill groups are only worthwhile at char gen, and once you've capped an attribute. Apart from that, they are almost always a bad use of karma. Not good game design.
As for the time, true hobgoblin - but if you start handing out upwards of 10 karma per run that skill and attribute cap comes much closer, much faster...again, not really a good thing.
(and nice call on that dodge thing - I missed that)
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Go find someone else to blow smoke and illogical linking to truisms at. |
coming from a post that contains no relevant data concerning the question(s) being discussed, i believe this statement counts as humor.
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
coming from a post that contains no relevant data concerning the question(s) being discussed, i believe this statement counts as humor. |
Yeah, but it's the kind of laughter that comes out when you need to keep from screaming.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| Blakkie, you don't get to walk away from this with flippant comments and insulting tirades alone. What do you actually mean? I'll use only short words, so don't try to act like the President's Press Secretary about this: My claim is, and has been, that when you pay points, you should get what you pay for. That is, when you pay more you should get more. When you pay less, you should get less. There. Nothing more than a single syllabel. Tell me exactly what your problem is with this statement or just stop posting to this thread altogether. We are in put up or shut up mode now. ---- Autarkis, that's a bad example. Dodge is actually based on Reaction. And it has funky mechanics in which it often isn't added at all, and sometimes is added twice. If you want to talk about Agility, use Agility Skills. |
So replace it with "Unarmed Combat" or "Blades" or some other Agility linked ability. (I would have hoped I had memorized everything by now since I keep claiming SR4 is less complicated
)And in regards to your points below. Looking at Skills or Skill Groups and Attributes excluding each other does, in my opinion, make it look like 1) Skills are too cheap and 2) Attributes trump Skill Groups. This again, is looking at them in a vacuum.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| Say, Automatics, Lockpicking, Gymnastics, or Infiltration. These are all great skills. And Agility adds to all of them. An attribute goes from one to six. A Skill goes from zero to six. Leaving aside for the moment that there are some very weird effects that happen when you start with different amounts of BP in an attribute or skill, let's look at the Karma/die of attributes and skills, starting with the minimum possible BP investment (which is to say, no Skill and an attribute of 1): First, the cost of skills: Skill Value: Karma Cost: Karma/Die: 1 : 4 : 2 2 : 4 : 4 3 : 6 : 6 4 : 8 : 8 5 : 10 : 10 6 : 12 : 12 Note that the first die is worth double, because you otherwise have a -1 die defaulting penalty. Now, the cost of Skill Groups: Skill Value: Karma Cost: Karma/Die: 1 : 10 : 5 2 : 10 : 10 3 : 15 : 15 4 : 20 : 20 5 : 25 : 25 6 : 30 : 30 |
So the same thing applies for Skill Groups as Skills, the first die is worth double because you otherwise have a -1 die penalty (and actually might be worth more since it covers 3 to 4 skills...so one could expand it, based on the assumptions you have put forward, that Skill Groups are worth 3 to 4 times more for the first die because it removes a -1 die from multiple Skills within the Skill Group.)
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| Now, the cost of attributes. This is a little funky because you will care about a variable number of skills but we'll write the table out as if only one mattered: 2 : 6 : 6 3 : 9 : 9 4 : 12 : 12 5 : 15 : 15 6 : 18 : 18 So what do we notice? First of all, the cost of raising an attibute is never more than the cost of getting level 4 of your skill group. And it's better than the fourth point of a skill group. Any Skill Group. Secondly, if that attribute is adding to just 2 skills that you give a damn about, it's always a better deal per die than adding your 5th or 6th point to a single skill. If it's an attribute like Agility or Magic that could plausibly add to four or even six skills that you really care about, it's a better deal per die to buy the sixth point than it is to buy the second point of any single skill. |
Again, if looked in a vacuum and looking as if Skills, Skill Groups, and Attributes were independent, I would concede. But, they are not. They are dependent on each other and both give diminishing returns from a Karma standpoint. If you look at it from a 1 to 6 standpoint, then Attributes trump all. But, if you look at it from a 1 to 12 (assuming human, no specialties, and no exceptional ability/attribute), it paints a larger picture.
So for the scale you gave of 1 to 6, with Skills, Skill Groups, and Attributes in a vacuum. Lets see how they work together to get 6 dice. It is more cost effective to go from 1 to 3 in a Skill (or Skill Group) and 1 to 3 in an Attribute than it is to go from 1 to 6 in an Attribute or even 1 to 5 with a Skill (or Skill Group)(assuming at least 1 point in Attributes) to get to roll 6 dice.
But I would stay away from the 1 to 6 scale and look at the 1 to 12 scale, which most players will be striving for.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| Heck, if it's an attribute like Magic that adds to two of your skill groups, it's a better deal to add your 6th point to the attribute than to buy your second point of the skill groups (18 karma for a +1 to everything instead of 20). And that's holding aside the fact that these attributes actually do things that the skills do not - like allow you to summon more powerful spirits or cast more powerful spells wihtout taking physical drain. That skills are a worse deal than attributes is a given. The math has been done on other threads, and now here it is again on this thread. So back to my original point: Why is it a problem to want different choices of point expenditure to give roughly equal bonuses? -Frank |
Using Magic is cheating
It is, after all, Magic. But to answer your question, the above is true. It is cheaper to raise Magic to a 6 than to raise 2 Skill Groups to 2. But you will end up raising those Skill Groups because it will be cheaper (and again Magic isn't a good example since it can be raised above 6 by initiating...to get to Magic 7 would be 10+(1X3) + 7X3 or 13 + 21 =33, and is probably worthy of its own thread.) But, if it wasn't Magic, but a capped attribute (Willpower, Logic, Charisma) then they can still raise the skills. And, back to your Magic example, they would need to wait 18 Karma in sessions versus 10 Karma in sessions for a +1 in a skill group or even 4 Karma in sessions for a +1 in a skill (or 4+6+8 to get +3 in a skill versus +1 from raising Magic.)
I am not concerned about it, but you obviously are. So, to answer your original post (and I missed it with all the post in between), they shouldn't be equal.
But, you may want to look at Sebsky(sic) alternate character creation and development rules, I don't prefer it but you may.
God, I am way to lazy to type this all out...time to sleep.......
| QUOTE (Autarkis) |
| Looking at Skills or Skill Groups and Attributes excluding each other does, in my opinion, make it look like 1) Skills are too cheap and 2) Attributes trump Skill Groups. |
Oh dear. Both of those things can't be true. A skill group is 3 or 4 skills and costs as much as 2.5 skills. So if Attributes trump skill groups, they trump loan skills by a considerable margin.
An attribute point is better than a skill point. If there is ever a time when raising the entire attribute is competitive with raising a loan skill for the purposes of adding a die to a single skill roll, there is a huge problem. There isn't any attribute that only affects a single skill roll that you care about. Not even one. So raising a single skill should always be cheaper than raising the whole attribute. If that is ever not the case (and the cost charts can show you many places on that chart where that is true), there's a big problem. Not a small problem, a big one.
-Frank
That is the case, Troll-o-lina. Skills are cheaper to raise than Attributes. It seems you have a problem with Skill Groups being more expensive than Attributes, again which I can understand if you are looking at them independently of each other (i.e. each at a scale of 1 to 6).
<shrug> Like I said before, I guess we won't see eye to eye on this, but I would just like you to consider looking at the dynamic of dice pools on a scale of 1 to 12.
So to repeat again, yes an Attribute is better than a Skill Group and it can be debated if it is better than a Skill, if you look at it on a scale of 1 to 6, stating that to have an Attribute excludes having a Skill or Skill Group. But, if you look at it from a scale of 1 to 12, you will see the dynamics between Attributes and Skills (and Skill Groups.) Yes Attributes cap at 6 and yes Skills (and Skill Groups) cap at 6, but you add them together, so your pool caps at 12.
Note: Bolding can be fun! I also learned how to italicize, underline and do all of them at once!
Also, you may want to go here and check out Serbitar's modified SR4 rules, they may be more in line with your thoughts and might fix some of your problems (I think he may have changed cost for raising stuff, then you might want to double check.)
<shrug> Like I said before, I guess we won't see eye to eye on this, but I would just like you to consider looking at the dynamic of dice pools on a scale of 1 to 12.
So to repeat again, yes an Attribute is better than a Skill Group and it can be debated if it is better than a Skill, if you look at it on a scale of 1 to 6, stating that to have an Attribute excludes having a Skill or Skill Group. But, if you look at it from a scale of 1 to 12, you will see the dynamics between Attributes and Skills (and Skill Groups.) Yes Attributes cap at 6 and yes Skills (and Skill Groups) cap at 6, but you add them together, so your pool caps at 12.
Note: Bolding can be fun! I also learned how to italicize, underline and do all of them at once!
Also, you may want to go here and check out Serbitar's modified SR4 rules, they may be more in line with your thoughts and might fix some of your problems (I think he may have changed cost for raising stuff, then you might want to double check.)
I really don't see how that is supposed to change anything.
So the scale goes from 2 to 12, and if you are only concerned about a single skill roll, the cheapest way to get there is:
Skill 1
Skill 2
Att 2
Skill 3
Skill 4
Att 3
Skill 5
Att 4
Skill 6
Att 5
Att 6
...which is actually a fairly even progression. But you do care about more than a single skill. And of course, if you find yourself mixxing and matching Skill bonuses and Attribute Bonuses fairly evenly when attempting to raise a single skill, then you're paying way too much for the skills, because the skill is so much not as good.
But regardless, what you actually buy is 2-6 skills off of any attribute owrth talking about, and that means that the 2-12 progression looks like this:
Skill 1
Att 2
Att 3
Att 4
Att 5
Att 6
Skill 2
Skill 3
Skill 4
Skill 5
Skill 6
And that's a clear indication that something costs too much. And that something is skills.
-Frank
So the scale goes from 2 to 12, and if you are only concerned about a single skill roll, the cheapest way to get there is:
Skill 1
Skill 2
Att 2
Skill 3
Skill 4
Att 3
Skill 5
Att 4
Skill 6
Att 5
Att 6
...which is actually a fairly even progression. But you do care about more than a single skill. And of course, if you find yourself mixxing and matching Skill bonuses and Attribute Bonuses fairly evenly when attempting to raise a single skill, then you're paying way too much for the skills, because the skill is so much not as good.
But regardless, what you actually buy is 2-6 skills off of any attribute owrth talking about, and that means that the 2-12 progression looks like this:
Skill 1
Att 2
Att 3
Att 4
Att 5
Att 6
Skill 2
Skill 3
Skill 4
Skill 5
Skill 6
And that's a clear indication that something costs too much. And that something is skills.
-Frank
so two options, drop the cost for skills or upp the cost for everything else. and given that people complain that you can hit the limits way to fast im guessing that only option 2 is valid...
| QUOTE (mfb @ Sep 9 2005, 08:32 PM) | ||
coming from a post that contains no relevant data concerning the question(s) being discussed, i believe this statement counts as humor. |
You can't see how he tries to link his crap with "get what you pay for"? That truism is entirely irrelant. Don't see that? Then you go play with him, i'm not.
blakkie, i've long since given up trying to show you how incredibly irrational you are. you pointing out someone else's logical disconnect? i have nothing for you but giggles and pointed, mocking fingers.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Sep 10 2005, 07:20 AM) |
| blakkie, i've long since given up trying to show you how incredibly irrational you are. |
Irrational like thinking it's a good idea to understand a problem and it's root before issuing a fix? Ya, keep giggling. ...and posting about a game you'll have no intention of playing?
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| so two options, drop the cost for skills or upp the cost for everything else. and given that people complain that you can hit the limits way to fast im guessing that only option 2 is valid... |
Third option: Use learning time and common sense!
In example Uping my Intelligence is far more complicated than upping my skill in a foreign language. Same goes for most physical skills. Unless your players are doing RPGs to compensate for their real world life, they should go along the "improve skills" route all by themselfs.
Birdy
There are discriptions of what skills represent. With a low skill value and high attribute you´re a natural with little training. If you have a low skill you simply haven´t done that thing a lot, but when you did you did it well. I´d say there are things the skill represents that are not inherent in the attribute.
Let´s take etiquette as example. With 8 in charisma and 2 in etiquette the elf face from the barrens is attending a high society social gathering, trying to fit in. She is radient and charming, and everybody loves her, but that doesn´t change the fact that she doesn´t know what fork to pick up for the dessert. Her lack of skill has put her in trouble. She may well get out of it though, seing as she´s such a ravishing lady.
I´m going to do this from time to time.
Let´s take etiquette as example. With 8 in charisma and 2 in etiquette the elf face from the barrens is attending a high society social gathering, trying to fit in. She is radient and charming, and everybody loves her, but that doesn´t change the fact that she doesn´t know what fork to pick up for the dessert. Her lack of skill has put her in trouble. She may well get out of it though, seing as she´s such a ravishing lady.
I´m going to do this from time to time.
| QUOTE (mintcar) |
| that doesn´t change the fact that she doesn´t know what fork to pick up for the dessert. Her lack of skill has put her in trouble. |
Not to say your example is totally bogus (because it's a good example), but the first rule of Table Etiquette is to watch your peers and surroundings. You wait for the guest of honor to start eating, and observe what fork they are using. This doesn't apply for all situations, obviously, but for high-society functions it works well.
There are a couple of amusing anecdotes about how this can backfire, including an apocryphal story about the President, generally attributed to either Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland:
| QUOTE |
| "President Grover Cleveland, presiding over a formal dinner party, once added sugar and cream to his coffee, stirred it, and then poured it into his saucer. Anxious to please, his guests followed suit but were at a loss when the president leaned down and put the saucer on the floor for his dog. Sometimes, however, an extremely gracious host or hostess will go out of the way to make sure a guest is not embarrassed by a breach of etiquette. Queen Victoria once downed the contents of her finger bowl because she didn't want to embarrass the Shah of Persia, who had done so first." |
Still, when deciding which one is the dessert fork, you'd watch the people around you if you don't know. Surprisingly, it's pretty easy to discover which fork goes with what food if you remember "Outside to inside" (first one you pick up with be on the outside edges). Silverware is almost always laid out in the order of use in this manner, with the final silverware for the sorbet or dessert on the top of the setting.
Only with a low level etiquette skill that lesson may not be learned yet. Maybe at 2 it would, who knows. Thanks for the amusing anecdote anyway.
Maybe at 2 it would, who knows. Thanks for the amusing anecdote anyway.
| QUOTE |
| Queen Victoria once downed the contents of her finger bowl because she didn't want to embarrass the Shah of Persia, who had done so first. |
Mmmmmm, lemon soup. I actually saw someone do that once in naivety.
| QUOTE (hahnsoo) | ||||
Not to say your example is totally bogus (because it's a good example), but the first rule of Table Etiquette is to watch your peers and surroundings. You wait for the guest of honor to start eating, and observe what fork they are using. This doesn't apply for all situations, obviously, but for high-society functions it works well. There are a couple of amusing anecdotes about how this can backfire, including an apocryphal story about the President, generally attributed to either Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland:
Still, when deciding which one is the dessert fork, you'd watch the people around you if you don't know. Surprisingly, it's pretty easy to discover which fork goes with what food if you remember "Outside to inside" (first one you pick up with be on the outside edges). Silverware is almost always laid out in the order of use in this manner, with the final silverware for the sorbet or dessert on the top of the setting. |
Okay, and what is the proper behaviour when eating rice in Japan? The proper way of table talk when attending a diner at the Daimyos court? The correct way to eat your stew and porridge with various african tribes?
Or a simple one: When do you take off your jacket on a german marriage party?
Knowing common rules for your own society might work (Etq 1) but high Etiquette also represents knowledge of other cultures that you might meet.
Birdy
| QUOTE (Birdy) |
| Okay, and what is the proper behaviour when eating rice in Japan? The proper way of table talk when attending a diner at the Daimyos court? The correct way to eat your stew and porridge with various african tribes? Or a simple one: When do you take off your jacket on a german marriage party? Knowing common rules for your own society might work (Etq 1) but high Etiquette also represents knowledge of other cultures that you might meet. |
Again, nothing that a bit of observation cannot handle. Sure, if you are immediately thrust into a situation where such things are considered standard protocol, you may have problems. But Etiquette incorporates a LOT more than memorizing culture-specific rules. It's how to behave such that all parties are agreeable and aren't offended. This doesn't necessarily mean that you follow strict protocols to the letter, as strict protocols are really only there to prevent the parties involved from being offended in any way. A person with a High Etiquette isn't someone who has the rules memorized by rote... it's someone who knows why such rules exist, and knows how to act "politely" regardless of one's situation. It's more important to know "Follow the behavior of the folks around you" and learn how to mimick such behavior than to know "Silverware goes from outside to inside", for example. This is one reason why Etiquette is based off of Charisma than Logic or Intelligence.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.