[Torg] More shtuff: Skills and Knacks

[Sam Frazier II]

>>>I actually purposefully left out Flaws/Disads, but they work the same as
>>>reverse Merits, except that they never generate possibilities or extra
>>>attribute points.

Mmmmm ok I'll ponder on that.


>>> <Benn explains Flaws and Merits> 

This makes alot more sense. 


>>>The idea of getting a +6 Dex isn't one we have actually used, I typed it in
>>>off the top of my head trying to come up with examples - that idea is flawed
>>>and I would ask you to pretend I never typed it in the first place.

Say what? Did I read something? 

Whew you had me scared.


>>>Also, please keep in mind that all Merits have to be approved by the GM -
>>>Merits are more of a framework.

This goes without saying, but you are attempting to describe a potential Adv/Disadv system that could potentially be used by more than your group.

You also stipulated, in earlier posts, that you wanted to quantify these to make their cost-benefit understandable or workable or....damn I forgot the adj, but workable in the current game system. Thus they should be written where the players can take them and apply them straight away without a GM stating, "You're kidding right?"

And as I mentioned later the knack should be broken up into Flaws and Merits, you stated that you liked what you had. So. *shrug* I'll say no more on breaking the Merits up into both Merits and flaws, one bonus/penalty per item. I don't have the whole thing to review, and will take your word upon it.

After all, for a year it has been working for your group. 

>>> >>As I commented before, I would have a Merit, that represented a
>>> >>specific skill at a certain level, and was unrollable, unincreasing,
>>> >>and purely natural. In the level's described above, I'd set the
>>> >>intimidation  12 -15-18 for levels 1-2-3. He wouldn't have roll them,
>>> >>he'd just have an intimidation of 15 because that was his inate
>>> >>ability.

>>>I must confess I don't really get this?

Essentially I was attempting to state the following and crunched it up to save space.

Level 1 Natural Skill: The character will have the skill at a Skill Value of 12. The Character does not roll a BN for this skill, and can never be considered unskilled. This skill can not be raised. This represents the natural talent the character has in this skill. 

Level 2 Natural Skill: The character will have the skill at a Skill Value of 15 The Character does not roll a BN for this skill, and can never be considered unskilled. This skill can not be raised. This represents the natural talent the character has in this skill. 

Level 3 Natural Skill: The character will have the skill at a Skill Value of 18 The Character does not roll a BN for this skill, and can never be considered unskilled. This skill can not be raised. This represents the natural talent the character has in this skill. 

This is what we, groups I've been associated with in the past, could view as a "Natural Skill" If you read about animals in the books, they typically have a low mind, but a very high willpower, which is in parathenthsis, explained only of the natural mental deterant. The animal wouldn't roll for this, they are never unskilled, and they can't learn more about it. Thus our (above) mention of a Natrual skill a person could have. 

Now it doesn't mean the person can't learn the skill, they can. If they learn it, they buy the adds as with any skill. Now the character would have two of the same skill. One is natural, one is learnt. The character can use either, and the GM can decide which one to ask the character to use based on the situation. Obviously if the character is rolling the die, they are indeed using the skill they purchased. 

A common flaw with this Merit should be Lost Natural Skill, a Level 1 Flaw which stipulates if the character ever buys an add in the Natural Skill, they lose the Natural Skill Adv. Essentially they have to unlearn what nature is telling them to do, and use what they have learnt. This has positives and negatives obviously, hence the reason for the separation between the Merit Natural Skill and the Flaw: Loss of Natural Skill. I wouldn't raise the flaw past a Level 1, even if they had a Level 3 Merit. My opinion.

So....I hope that explains that minute paragraph. *weak smile*

>>It's a little more sophisticated than that.  A +3 BN, with max improved
>>bonus number of 0 means that you could still wind up with as low as a -9 BN
>>even with this Merit (if you roll a 1 = -12).  Alternatively, if you roll a
>>16 (a BN of +3) than this Merit for that roll does nothing at all.

>>>Did you see that?  Am I explaining this clearly enough?

Apearently not. I'll read the next examples. *sigh* 

>>Also, the fact you can't get a positive bonus number should be a
>>flaw/disadvantage/compensation and not part of the Merit.

>>> <clips the Knack 1 example>

>>>Make sense now?

More so yea, I grasp the examples better now. I see what you are saying.

But that doesn't sound like much of a merit IMHO. Effectively for the skill in question it does the following:

Roll   BN
1       -9
2       -7
3       -5
4       -5
5       -2
6       -2
7       0
8       0
9       0
10      0
11      0
12      0
13+    read the chart

Level one doesn't do much but expand the possibility of a normal Skill Value result. 
MEH

>>>Level 2 Knacks work the same way, but it's +6 instead of +3, and 2 instead
>>>of zero:

>>>If the bonus number is 2 or higher, use it.  If however the Bonus Number is
>>>lower than +2, use the bonus number+6, or +2, whichever is *lower*.

Yea this seems actually useful. 

>>>I hadn't gotten around to ruling on this yet - I am leaning to a stymie
>>>gobbles this up.

The Stymie should gobble it up. It is a roll-again. Though it'll count as the roll-again as long as the character uses this skill as their primary action.


>>>I don't understand your objection here, I think you maybe operating off a
>>>misread (or miscommunication) - I sure hope so.  I know for a fact that you
>>>didn't have level 1 and 2 figured out, maybe this is related to that.  Does
>>>my hopefully better explanation of level 1 and 2 above clear up this
>>>objection too?

Sort of and sort of not. The Level 3 version of this didn't have a min bonus number like the other two, you just could screw yourself by rolling two 1s. It leaves the path set up by the previous two levels of this Merit. You don't have a min bonus number, you just add a die roll to the first one. It is essentially a free possibility per use of the skill. depending on the skill, it could be used 30 times in an adventure or it could be used 30 times per 5 year time frame of the character. 

I understand the GM must approve this, but with the description described, do you see the potential abuse? If applied to the wrong skill, or limited to certain skills? The merit would be over or under priced. Only the GM has the say, and it isn't written in the rules. Ergo my issue with these three merits as described. 


>>>I never thought so before. ;)  Define a TORG Power Game. ;p

TORG power game is one that hands out too many possibilities to characters for events that they do. They implement house rules which make characters more powerful than they should be too soon. It encourages possiblity spending over possibility managing. 

I ask because of the questions/stuff you have brought to the list here. I don't know your game, so I'm forced to guess and think of how as a Player I'd attempt to use them. As a GM how'd I'd have to manage them. 

When I say abuse it is something that breaks something in the system that shouldn't be broken. Hence why I was against Willpower and Determination based on two different attributes but defends against the same stuff. Someone not controlled would use that to have a 7 mind, a 12 spirit and a wicked Determination, intimidation etc. (you stated earlier your game doesn't use Reality nor Faith, but in TORG those are two powerful skills, so I'll leave those out) It effectively, in my opinion, eliminates the need to have Mind. After all the skills the character have, aren't focused in Mind, they are focused elsewhere, and in Spirit. Conversely does the same for Spirit. A weak Spirit and Strong Mind makes Willpower strong and Determination weak, but it doesn't matter does it. They cover the same thing. 

The same with these Merits/Flaws. As I've worked on such a system, I've had the chance to work with numerous people who point out errors in the logic behind the poorly written Merit/Flaw. One I pointed out was combining too much into a Merit/Flaw. If it can be broken up, break it up. First it is more dynamic and can be defined in game terms simplier. Two you can always allow the character to build his own complicated Merit/Flaw through a group of simple Merit/Flaws. 

Point of that would be: A poorly written Merit/Flaw can lead to abuse.


>>> >>Well I'd disagree on this, as a Level 1 and Level 2 really aren't
>>> >>potent and don't need to be limited at all IMHO. But a Level 3, yea,
>>> >>that makes sense. Also tell your GM not to allow this on an agressive
>>> >>skill like persuasion, melee/missle/unarmed, intimiation, or any
>>> >>trained skill or he'll have problems.

>>>So far (again probably because of the miscommunication about levels 1 and 2)
>>>I personally feel the GM should allow it on any skill, aggressive or not -
>>>but if you were to persuade why that shouldn't be the case, I would
>>>certinly take that to the GM.

I stick to my guns about my statement. The Level 3 merit is just too potent depending on what skill it is placed upon. Placed on Fire-Combat, Intimidation, Dodge, Persuasion, etc....essentially gives that player a ton of free rolls which would effectively but off the 30 possibilty investment in short order and abuse the rest of the free rolls. Now if it were on Science(whatever), Scholar (whatever), etc I would allow it, but probably lower the cost a little, as those skills aren't used as often. Those skills are used at different times, and impact upon the game is seriously different. Since your descriptions don't force a difference between the different skills, I'm forced to aim on the safe side and limit. I hope you understand that, even if you don't agree on it.

>>>Looking forward to your reactions now that I have hopefully cleared up a big
>>>miscommunication.

Well there was some of that, no arguement there, and I grasp a good deal more than I did.

I still don't like the Vagueness, and complication inserted into the merits/flaws I see. Not to mention the rigid structure of the three levels. I'm not too keen on the ability to raise them either. But I understand it. 

As I stated earlier though, it works for your group which is the important part. That alone makes me believe there are things I'm not seeing or you haven't shown.

I wouldn't feel confident implementing it in another game with different players and GM though. It has too many potential holes.

That is just what I see.

SDF II