[Torg] More shtuff: Skills and Knacks

[Benjamin Grant]

I should note right now to make sure I do not give the wrong impression,
that while we have employed Merits and Flaws for over a year, the idea of
skill Knacks is brand new and we have only begun to try those out.

>>>>> <Benn explains Flaws and Merits>
>>
>>This makes alot more sense.

Woot!

>>>>>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.

(look left)(looks right)  Phew.

>>>>>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.

True - the only reason I mention it is my GMing and gaming style is to use
the rules of any system as guidelines to help me decide what happens and
what resolutions occur, but ultimately to defer to the GMs sense of what is
right and how things *ought* to be.  Meaning that a rule change of
modification that gives a significant benefit is desirable to me even if
there is a hole which the GM has to possibly plug manually.

For example, in Champions as I recall, one could take advantage of the rules
to make a character so powerful as to be ridiculous, *if* the GM didn't
manually put the brakes on and stop the players from overly abusing the
system.  So to me, the GM's sensibilities are an important part of what
makes *any* game work, and are to be factored into whether or not a game
with a particular system is functional.

Now I am not saying that any hole or flaw can be overlooked using that
justification either - some rules are broken, and some rules are more
trouble than they are worth.

>>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.

OK.

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

Again, full disclosure here - Merits in general have been working well for a
year, but Knacks are brand new and untried.

>>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.

Ah, this seems fully functional, I'm not saying it is broken or anything,
but I do not like it.  I want a Knack to be synergistic with the skill adds
they have in the skill somehow.  So that someone with a Knack is good, but
someone with a Knack and training is amazing.  Like an Olympic Ice Skater -
it's not just training or underlying attribute, sometimes the person just
has a natural aptitude for it.  IMO.

>>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.

Yup, again, this is functional, but I desire the natural aptitude and the
skill to interact and help each other.  Of course, I support people using
either your take on this or mine, or their own, whatever gives them the game
they want to play.

>>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 sure does, thanks.  As to a Flaw that one is especially bad at something
- I hadn't considered that.  It's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't want
someone to take Flaws in skills that they would never use just for some
advantage.  Still, the idea of a Flaw that provides story fodder, maybe
something like Clumsy, or Bad Memory - that could work find, probably under
the existing Flaw rules.

>>>>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

!Exactly! - Think of it this way - it's ONLY five possibilities to purchase,
so it's NOT going to be that impressive.  In my judgment, you get your
money's worth for what you spend.

>>>>>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.

Yeah, the actual chart for this level would basically be:

Roll   BN
1       -6
2       -4
3       -2
4       -2
5       +1
6       +1
7       +2
8       +2
9       +2
10      +2
11      +2
12      +2
13      +2
14      +2
15      +2
16+    read the chart

I should note that something else level one and level two knacks bring isn't
just downside protection, but with it, predictability and reliability - the
rolls become less random (or at least less randomly bad), which is usually a
good thing.

>>
>>>>>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.

Yup.

>>
>>
>>>>>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.

Correct me if I am wrong:  when you roll a 1, and spend a possibility for a
reroll, on the second roll any roll of less than 10 is treated as if you
rolled a 10 (without rerolling it).  So rolling a 1 followed by another 1
from the free pseudo-possibility reroll would be a total of 11, which would
be a 0, then your level 2 of the Knack kicks in and makes it a +2.

And yes, the more you use the skill, the more benefit you can get from it,
without doubt.  However, I really do not think that a free possibility,
while very effective, is game breakingly effective.  This is why:

I just whipped up a 20 by 20 spreadsheet in excel to look at the difference
in Bonus Numbers between rolling a single d20 and rolling a d20 plus a
possibility.  The only factor I didn't include are rerolls on 10s or 20s, as
that was too complex to analyze - so natural rerolls are ignored both for a
single d20 and for d20+possibility reroll.  After much computation, the
following are found to be true:

The average Bonus Number with a single d20 is -1.25, that is on average, you
can expect to have an average result of losing 1.25 from your skill.  (This
result surprised me.)

The median Bonus Number with a single d20 is -0.5

The average Bonus Number with a d20 plus a possibility reroll is +6.78, and
the median is +8.

For the record, the span of a single d20 (minus rerolling 10s and 20s) is of
course -12 to 7.  The span of a d20+possibility is 0-11.

So one has to spend 30 possibilities to get to a level 3 Knack.  30
possibilities spent on the skill itself yields a +7 skill with 2
possibilities left over.

Sounds like you could spend 30 on the Knack, and get an average +8 on the
skill, or spend 28 possibilities and get a +7 on the skill, or spend both
and get +15. That sounds mathematically right to me.

Another downside of the level 3 Knack is that sure, it gives you +8 on
average, but only after you have invested all 30 possibilities.  Spending 28
possibilities for a +7, on the other hand, gives you a stronger and stronger
skill all along the way, meaning more power more quickly.  Just a thought.

By the way, what is even more interesting is the vastly underwhelming effect
of spending a second possibility or Hero/Drama card (hero point in our game)
- since you are already in 20 and over territory with the dice total, taking
a third roll only gets you +1 to +4 because at this level you only get +1 to
your BN for every +5 to the dice total.  In fact, apart from the chance for
Glory, the average (and median) extra effect you get from getting a third
roll is only 2.5 more to your BN - meaning that overall, you are better
served by playing a +3 Card than a Hero or Drama.

Did everyone else already bump into this weird fact?

>>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.

Potential abuse with Merits in general or Knacks in specific?  I as yet do
not see an issue with Knacks, for the above reasons.  It helps to limit them
I guess if the GM only permits on Knack per character, but I can't imagine a
character being able to afford too many of them.

>>>>>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.

Define "too".  ;p

>>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.

We are actively considering moving Willpower to Spirit and removing it from
Mind.  Mind has a lot of other things going for it.

We will see.  Evidence Analysis, Survival, Memory, Logic - that may be
enough for Mind.

>>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.

I can't disagree with you here - to me, the fact that poor GM oversight can
lead to issue is an unavoidable consequence of gaming in general - therefor
I don't worry much about it apart from trying to select good GMs and help
out the GMs where I can.

We have the exact same issues with super powers.  Each super power is its
own new mechanic, and while we have guidelines that I have posted here
before (Stunt, Absolute, Pool, Aspect, Domain, and Universal) creating a
super powered character involves working with the GM to define to new rules
for the powers of the character, based one on of the standard six
guidelines.

Long story short, I want rules that give the GM more options choices, but I
want the GM to be running the game, not the mechanics to be running the
game.  The GM uses the mechanics, not the other way around, IMO.

>>>>> >>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.
>>

The tradeoff still seems acceptable to me, but I haven't closed the book on
the issues and ideas yet.

>>>>>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

And I appreciate the time and energy you have taken to grant me feedback,
and the non aggressive and non hostile manner in which you state you
concerns.  It really helps me be less defensive and more receptive.

Thanks.

-Benn Grant
eFix Computer Consulting
benn at 4eFix.com
603.283.6601