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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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...

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

As you prefer, but they're both just 'Clever Speaking' imho.

Still, I would find it difficult to see the famous fictional speeches (e.g. from

Shakespeare's Henry V) or real world speeches (e.g. by Winston Churchill)

as just another Fast Talk.

Besides, there is also the difference that good results of Oratory (= good

public speeches) are usually well prepared and skillfully composed works of

art, while Fast Talk is more like what a con man does on the fly whenever

he smells an easy mark.

Churchill was the arch-orator. Once, on making a speech in Parliament, he apologised for the length - 'Because I didn't have the time to write a shorter one.' Which is as true as it gets.

Some politicians are exceedingly poor orators and very good fast talkers, but more often than not, they're poor at both without a great deal of rehearsal and pre-briefing. A very good Fast Talker, and a good Orator, can perform both skills more or less off-the-cuff. The difference is that, in oration, its a one-way speech. In Fast Talk you're likely to be responding to questions and attempts to catch you out or trip you up. Like I say, very different skills, although yes, Frogspawner, they're both examples of Clever Speaking.

Whatever. As you prefer, but they're both just 'Clever Speaking' imho.

Not quite. Fast talk is off the cuff. Oratory usually involves quite a bit of pre-speech writing, knowledge, and research. Again, fast talk is more trying to convince someone of something in that specific moment so that once they realize you are full of BS, you are already long gone. Oratory is trying to persuade people to believe you for a long period of time if not forever.

Ian

So - what's the shortest time (speaking and/or preparation) that you'd allow for use of Oratory?

So - what's the shortest time (speaking and/or preparation) that you'd allow for use of Oratory?

I think I would require at least one hour of preparation for a public speech,

and give a small malus for a shorter preparation time and a small bonus for

a preparation time of at least one full day (perhaps -1 / +1).

As for the speech itself, it does not have to be long to be good. I seem to

remember that for example Lincoln's famous Gettisburgh address was quite

short.

Hmmm, after checking I find Legend doesn't actually have 'Fast Talk'. There's Influence, a version of Persuade, but that has long-lasting effects too.

Hmmm, after checking I find Legend doesn't actually have 'Fast Talk'.

This does not surprise me, Fast Talk is one of the skills I usually delete from the

skill lists of my BRP settings and treat it as a short term version of the Persuade

skill.

So - what's the shortest time (speaking and/or preparation) that you'd allow for use of Oratory?

As ever, it depends entirely on the circumstances. The great orators can stand-up and deliver a rousing speech with zero preparation or scripting. It comes from having clarity of thought, confidence, and the passion to deliver a message in a particular way based on the mood of the audience. It doesn't necessarily rely on pre-written or rehearsed material.

This does not surprise me, Fast Talk is one of the skills I usually delete from the

skill lists of my BRP settings and treat it as a short term version of the Persuade

skill.

Ditto. They are not exactly the same thing, but they are similar enough. Oratory is another story, though.

The great orators can stand-up and deliver a rousing speech with zero preparation or scripting.

True, but I suspect that such great orators would rarely be found among the

average adventurers, and therefore would hesitate to consider this possible

for any character with an Oratory skill level below 90 % - partially because I

consider this realistic, partially because I would want to keep the ability to

influence mass audiences rather rare in my settings (why deal with a problem

yourself if you can easily inspire a few dozen other people to do it for you ...).

True, but I suspect that such great orators would rarely be found among the

average adventurers, and therefore would hesitate to consider this possible

for any character with an Oratory skill level below 90 % - partially because I

consider this realistic, partially because I would want to keep the ability to

influence mass audiences rather rare in my settings (why deal with a problem

yourself if you can easily inspire a few dozen other people to do it for you ...).

Which is why I said it depends entirely on circumstances. :-)

True, but I suspect that such great orators would rarely be found among the

average adventurers, and therefore would hesitate to consider this possible

for any character with an Oratory skill level below 90 % - partially because I

consider this realistic, partially because I would want to keep the ability to

influence mass audiences rather rare in my settings (why deal with a problem

yourself if you can easily inspire a few dozen other people to do it for you ...).

"But Brutus is an honorable man ...."

Aw, let the PCs razzle-dazzle an audience -- then have to deal with the consequences when the mob they've aroused gets out of control. "But I never meant for this to happen!"

Again I think examples like Oratory and Fast Talk show the strength of splitting the skill system into a small number of general skills and a potential infinite number of advanced skills.

Using Influence as the catch-all social communication skill then a player may say "I want to stand on the wall and deliver a speech to the mob to make them angry." In general that would be an Influence skill roll. It might take some time, have some minuses and so on. A second player might have a character who has developed the skill of Oratory so his character probably won't have a minus, might do it more quickly and rouse the mob to a greater intensity while able to keep better control.

Similarly, a player might decide that they want to create a Fast Talk advanced skill which is just like Influence only happens more quickly and is based on confusing its victim and keeping them so off balance that they don't spot what they agreed to until too late. Again you could do this with Influence but could do it better with Fast Talk.

Again I think examples like Oratory and Fast Talk show the strength of splitting the skill system into a small number of general skills and a potential infinite number of advanced skills.

While I would certainly allow a player to add as many advanced skills as he likes

to his character's skill list, I would also remind him that I would not increase the

number of his character's improvement rolls because of this.

Again I think examples like Oratory and Fast Talk show the strength of splitting the skill system into a small number of general skills and a potential infinite number of advanced skills.

It also always struck me as a bit strange that Seduction was a separate advanced skill. However, this makes perfect sense if you regard certain advanced skills as specializations of Common Skills. You can break out Influence into a wide range of individual advanced skills, but there's a trade-off involved - the Advanced skills allow you to ignore certain Difficulty modifiers that might be applied to a broad common skill such as Influence, but their use is more situational. Thus, you could allow an adventurer to use Influence to flirt with an attractive barmaid, but if he wants to seduce her to spend the night with him after her shift ends he either needs to make a Seduction roll or take a hefty difficulty modifier to his Influence roll.

In the same way, you could also easily add an Intimidation skill. And the beauty of this approach is that it might be based upon different characteristics than the basic skill. For example, intimidation might be based upon CHA + STR (or even CHA + SIZ) rather than CHA x2. This also allows you to create specialist characters such as an enforcer for the local gang who can intimidate the locals without being gifted with all forms of social interaction.

And if you aren't giving the players extra Improvement rolls, then they need to make a choice whether to sacrifice a certain amount of general utility for increased aptitude in a limited area. In effect, they can either pursue a path which is broad but shallow or narrow but deep. This corresponds well with the real-life situation where professionals tend to know more and more about a narrower and narrower field as they advance through their career and specialize in a particular area. It's potentially an elegant approach that is implicit in the existing rules.