Fudge RPG - Broad vs. Narrow skills

Important! This is an archived mailing list. Subscription information included in any messages is no longer current. Over the years, addresses and websites have changed. Follow offsite links at your own risk.


From: GmDslOnlyNet

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:50:58 GMT

Subject: Broad vs. Narrow skills


Context: objective character creation
Purpose: seeking advice and alternate approaches

Broad skills result in characters which are proficient in broad 
areas, incorporating many related sub-skills. This is realistic to 
me: a warrior should know lots of combat skills. But while he should 
know a variety of combat skills, he should not be equally skilled in 
all them. Which leads to...

Narrow skills result in characters who are very detailed. 
Unfortunately, I've noticed that if narrow skills are unrestricted, 
players build specialists who are amazing in one or two skills but 
neglect other stuff. This totally defeats my purpose, as I don't 
*want* specialists; I want detail in broad groups.

Of course there's always subjective creation, in which case this 
isn't a problem. Or Carl's semi-subjective, where the GM enforces 
genre conventions on otherwise objective creation. But I'd like to 
find something purely objective.

Five-point fudge solves this problem, but isn't very flexible for 
what I have in mind. It is too prescriptive of number of skills and 
specific skill levels.

Someone had a "pyramid" skill approach which might do the trick. 
although I'm not necessarily seeking lots of low level skills.

An idea of mine is to use broad skills, but allow players to specify 
"exceptions". For example, I have good warcraft, so all combat skills 
default to good; but I want to be great with swords, so I'll lower 
crossbow and axe/mace to fair as compensation. Or you could do this 
with Aspects.

Another idea is to let characters buy Gift levels, where each level 
includes a number of skill points which can be spent on appropriate 
skills. But this is getting pretty heavy-handed.

Prerequisites might work. Say, you have to have certain prerequisites 
at 2 levels below your desired level.

So, any ideas? Anyone else see this as a problem?

Mike
--
Mike Harvey -- Beaverton, Oregon
http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/

-- -----------------------------------------------
The Fudge List FAQ is at http://fudge.phoenyx.net/
          ** Please trim your quotes ** 

SequenceFirst LineUsernameDate
0 Ian asked: > Does the RPGA do "shared reality" campaigns, that share a common continuity? AndrewMartin 2002-03-02 09:42:28
1 Sorry Carl, but this is the first time you've said anything to me about my sig file. RodneyEBarnes 2002-02-25 21:36:46
2 specify > "exceptions". TonySpallino 2002-02-24 20:03:46
3 [mailto:fudge-error@phoenyx.net]On Behalf >Of gm@dsl-only.net alternate approaches > > >So, any ideas? JUghrin 2002-02-24 13:32:11
4 there could be little to no rules. DrIanMcDonald 2002-03-02 02:49:12
5 I'd start by everyone buying extremely broad skill groups with levels. If the players then wanted more detail, I would allow them to adjust levels up and down within the skill groups by +/- 1 or 2 by raising one skill and lowering another. JosephRDietrich 2002-02-23 20:07:09
6 Context: objective character creation Purpose: seeking advice and alternate approaches Broad skills result in characters which are proficient in broad areas, incorporating many related sub-skills. GmDslOnlyNet 2002-02-23 18:50:58
7 skill approach which might do the trick. FredHicks 2002-02-23 19:11:18
8 isn't very flexible for > what I have in mind. PhillWebb 2002-02-24 02:43:56
9 though, as to Organized Play, your seeing my >frustration I think. AdamJ 2002-02-25 21:52:07
10 I wish there was an "Organized Play" group for Fudge and homebrew games. RodneyEBarnes 2002-02-24 18:41:33
11 want "Organized Play" but have nothing good to say about it. CarlCravens 2002-02-25 19:33:20
12 with three RPGA > members in New Zealand who were allocated a section of the > Greyhawk D&D world to develop. CarolCollica 2002-03-02 10:10:40