Thread: Towards a more complete skill list

One of the things I dislike about Legend when compared directly with BRP is the simplified skill list. Yes, it's functional, but it lacks granularity.

Has anyone put together a more complete skill list - with the understanding that we're talking about fantasy RPGs? I've been bashing the set from BRP, RQ 2nd and 3rd editions, and Legend together in an attempt to come up with something that works for me, but I'm sure I'm missing things and/or have areas of significant overlap.

What I have so far:

Jump
Swim
Climb
Run
Dance
Sing

Track
Search
Spot
Listen

Hide
Stealth
Sleight

Lockpicking
Traps

Acrobatics

Survival
Streetwise
Appraise
Bargain
Persuade
Perform
Fast Talk
Oratory
Seduction
Etiquette
Gambling
Insight

Pilot (Vehicle)
Ride (Animal)
Navigate

Persistence
Resistance
Brawn

Art ()
Play Instrument ()
Craft ()
Lore ()
Culture ()
Language ()

First Aid
Healing

Throw
Missile Weapon (Class)
Melee Attack (Class)
Melee Parry (Class)
Shield Parry
Evade
Unarmed Combat

Spirit Walking
Spirit Binding

Sorcery
Manipulation

Pact

There is one very strong reason for the skill list being shorter and less granular - the different experience system.

BRP gives potential increases through ticks, earned when a skill is used. Legend awards a set number of improvement rolls per session/story, irrespective of success in skill usage. The player then chooses what to increase. This ensures parity of skill increase and the chance to increase less frequently used skills. However if you use a skill list the length and granularity of BRP with this approach it will take a very long time to get good at anything, whereas in Legend you can increase each time a weapon style (attack and defence in one) and 2 other skills of your choice each award.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue, but I expect others can explain it better.

I agree with Psychman's point. With the rather few Improvement Rolls a character gets
in the Legend system, a long skill list means that character development either becomes
very slow or concentrates only on a small set of skills especially useful in the setting. In
my experience only very few players would welcome such a modification of the skill list.

Originally Posted by Psychman

Legend awards a set number of improvement rolls... This ensures parity of skill increase and the chance to increase less frequently used skills.

But that approach makes it possible to increase skills you've never used, like the "killing orcs makes you better at climbing walls" flaw of D&D. Isn't downtime training a better way to get skill increase parity, if you want it?

As to that skill-list itself, I think there are a few duplicates. For instance, Perform and Play Instrument(x). Also, recently I've come to think Fast Talk and Oratory are similar enough to be the same skill: I found myself unable to say players couldn't use Oratory in time-limited situations - so basically, it became usable as Fast Talk, and therefore unfair if the reverse couldn't also be done.

Here's my suggestions to condense the skill list:

Search = Spot [but 'INTx?' for general perception rolls, i.e. requested by the GM, not the player]
Lockpicking = (Disarm) Traps
Persuade = Fast Talk = Oratory = Seduction
Perform = Play Instrument () [and Sing/Dance are just variations]
Language () - simplify this to one skill, and a list of languages known (without individual percentages, but recently-learned ones might be at, say, x1/2).
First Aid = Healing

Originally Posted by frogspawner

But that approach makes it possible to increase skills you've never used ...

To make it possible to increase a skill which has never been used runs into
a plausibility wall as soon as there was or is no plausible way to train the
specific skill the character wants to improve, like Pilot (Boat) in the desert
or Ride when there is no mount available. While the experience check me-
thod avoids this problem, the improvement roll method burdens the referee
with the decision (and potential discussions caused by his decision) which
skills can plausibly be improved in the setting.

In actual play, it's a non-issue. As a GM I hand out the improvement rolls and the players decide what to spend them on. To be honest I don't ask them, I just let them get on with it. The only restriction I have (and I forget whether this is actually in the rules or not) is that they can only spend one roll per skill.

If I was in a context where for some reason I thought my job was to stop players from "abusing" the system I would ask them to tell me what they're doing and we would do it as a table. i.e. player 1 makes his choices, rolls and we all watch and comment. Then player 2 does it and so on. If a choice doesn't make sense in the context I would ask the player to justify it and the other players can help or hinder as they see fit.

Personally though, if someone wants to improve their ride skill when they didn't do any riding during the actual session then that's the player's choice and I don't have a problem with it. I don't see what the issue is. Perhaps the character has been practising in his spare time or watching others ride or bought a copy of Riding for Dummies or something.

On the OP's point. The issue with a extending the skills list in Legend is precisely as noted: IRs are a fixed commodity. In BRP (to an extent) the more skills you have the more skill checks you are likely to get. For example, run, climb, jump and so on are all parts of Athletics in Legend. There are 21(?) basic skills and those cover probably 95% of all the mundane things you'll ever need to do. If you want to differentiate then I would simply add more advanced skills. E.g. Someone wants to be really good at running then let them develop an advanced skill at running. This skill might let them run for longer or more quickly than the standard Athletics skill and maybe in an opposed roll based on running the running specialist gets a bonus against the Athletics generalist. That seems to me to allow players to specialise without forcing players of sedentary characters to have to track a half-dozen different athletics skills.

Originally Posted by deleriad

Personally though, if someone wants to improve their ride skill when they didn't do any riding during the actual session then that's the player's choice and I don't have a problem with it. I don't see what the issue is.

As long as the character has a plausible access to whatever is required to
learn or improve a skill, there is no issue. The problem only begins when a
player wants his character to learn something which would normally be im-
possible to learn in the current situation, and comes up with some silly ex-
planation why his character should be able to do it (like learning to ride by
reading a book on riding).

Originally Posted by rust

As long as the character has a plausible access to whatever is required to
learn or improve a skill, there is no issue. The problem only begins when a
player wants his character to learn something which would normally be im-
possible to learn in the current situation, and comes up with some silly ex-
planation why his character should be able to do it (like learning to ride by
reading a book on riding).

This has been raised before on the Mongoose boards. Its very simple to handle: advise players that improvements can only be made to skills if the appropriate tools/resources/opportunities are available. And even then, as Deleriad says, it can be a non-issue. If the improvement rolls are doled-out at a point where the characters are likely to have significant downtime, such as between campaign chapters or scenarios, then it shouldn't be an issue. If you give rolls more frequently, and they crop-up mid-way through a scenario in a specific locale, then its easy enough to rule as above.

Also, recently I've come to think Fast Talk and Oratory are similar enough to be the same skill

I disagree. Oratory is public speaking; Fast Talk is gift-of-the-gab. I'm pretty good at the former and not so good at the latter. Oratory is a specific craft that I believe needs differentiation. You may have a wily con-artist who can sweet-talk his way through any improvised situation but stick him in front of a hostile audience at a politically important event and he may clam-up pretty darn quick. I've seen plenty of real-life instances of this happening.

Originally Posted by lawrence.whitaker

I disagree. Oratory is public speaking; Fast Talk is gift-of-the-gab. I'm pretty good at the former and not so good at the latter. Oratory is a specific craft that I believe needs differentiation. You may have a wily con-artist who can sweet-talk his way through any improvised situation but stick him in front of a hostile audience at a politically important event and he may clam-up pretty darn quick. I've seen plenty of real-life instances of this happening.

This.

Fast talk is exactly that - fast talk. It is the ability to quickly talk one's way into or out of a situation. When facing a large audience for a lengthier amount of time, fast talk will fail because the longer it goes on, the better the chance the audience will see past it. Oratory allows the speaker to make a more protracted and convincing argument that will last longer.

Ian

Originally Posted by lawrence.whitaker

Oratory is public speaking; Fast Talk is gift-of-the-gab.

Whatever. As you prefer, but they're both just 'Clever Speaking' imho. There may be some individuals who can't do both, but I see plenty of politicians - perhaps most - whose 'Oratory' seems actually to be just (failed) Fast Talk carried on for a boringly long time...

Glad there's no disagreement with the others at least...

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Search = Spot [but 'INTx?' for general perception rolls, i.e. requested by the GM, not the player]
Lockpicking = (Disarm) Traps
Persuade = Fast Talk = [...] = Seduction
Perform = Play Instrument () [and Sing/Dance are just variations]
Language () - simplify this to one skill, and a list of languages known (without individual percentages, but recently-learned ones might be at, say, x1/2).
First Aid = Healing