Least Favorite Mechanic

[Fiannaidhe]

The thing that bothered me the most was the Skill and controlling Attribute chart / lists. Maybe I simply thought too much about it. The pairing of some skills with certain Attributes just didn't make any sense to me.

Example: Mechanics being controlled by Strength. What?! I want some of what you're smoking!!

So to make skills make more sense to me I went ahead and remade my own Skill & Controlling Attributes list. First I compiled a list of skills from all the Careers in the first edition book, the PC Booster Kit, and several Demonground Articles that introduced new careers. Next, I tried to think of what attributes strongly influenced the skill. My list is not perfect, but for my individual game I found this works best for me as a GM. I tried to make it so that all attributes are important.

Acrobatics------------ AGI
Acting / Bluff---------- CHA
Archery---------------- ( STR + AGI ) / 2
Bargain------------------ CHA
Biology------------------ EDU
Business---------------- EDU
Chemistry ------------- EDU
Climbing ------------ ( STR + AGI + CON) / 3
Computer Programming---- EDU
Computer Hacking--------- ( INT + EDU ) / 2
Computer Operation-------- INT
Demolitions ----- ( INT + AGI ) / 2
Disguise----------- ( CHA + AGI + INT ) / 3
Electronics ------- ( INT + EDU ) / 2
Engineer------------- ( INT + EDU ) / 2
Forgery--------------- AGI
Heavy Weapons---- ( STR + AGI ) / 2
Horse Riding----- ( STR + AGI + CON ) / 3
Instruction -------- ( INT + CHA ) / 2
Interrogation------ ( INT + CHA ) / 2
Language ---------- INT
Leadership ---------- CHA
Lock Pick ----------- AGI
Mechanic ---------- INT
Medical -------- ( INT + AGI ) / 2
Melee Combat : Armed / Unarmed------- ( STR + AGI ) / 2
Navigation ------- INT
Observation------ ( INT + EMP + 3 ) / 2
Parachute -------- ( AGI + CON ) / 2
Persuasion ---------- CHA
Pick Pocket ------------ AGI
Pilot: Fixed wing / Rotary / Space Craft-------- ( INT + AGI ) / 2
Psychology ------------- ( INT + EDU ) / 2
Small Arms: Pistol / Rifle------ ( STR + AGI ) / 2
Specialty Skill-------- EDU
Stalking---------- ( INT + AGI ) / 2
Stealth------------ AGI
Streetwise--------- INT
Swimming-------- ( STR + CON ) / 2
Thrown Weapon------- ( STR + AGI ) / 2
Tracking -------------- ( INT + EMP + 3 ) / 2
Vehicle Use: Car / Motorcycle / Heavy--------- ( INT + AGI ) / 2
Vessel Use: Small Boat / Ship------------------ ( INT + AGI ) / 2

[Marcus Bone]

The thing that bothered me the most was the Skill and controlling Attribute chart / lists. Maybe I simply thought too much about it. The pairing of some skills with certain Attributes just didn't make any sense to me.

Hi All,

I agree with you 100%. I really disliked the controlling attributes as they are listed in DC 1st and 2nd edition.

This is one of the things we are looking at changing in 3rd edition, although, as we quickly discovered have both a consistent and logical distribution of skills in attribute grouping is quite difficult!

Marcus Bone

[vadersson]

I am not sure I agree here. While I agree that it is difficult to see how some of the skills are related to attributes, most do have a somewhat logical connection. However, I think the list as is was designed partly for play balance. Each attribute has quite a few skills related to it. If you think about it, most skills should default to intelligence, as that is what controls of knowledges.

Keep in mind that moving skills around too much effects backward compatibiliy. Small changes might be ok, but any wholesale reorginization of the skill tree would disrupt things.

Oh, and Mechanics is one of my favorite examples of skills. Here is how I look at it and why it is under strength.
To be a good mechanic you need to know a lot about cars and engines and such. That sounds like Education or Intellegence. However, if you ever really work on a car (or know a lot of mechanics) you will discover just how important Strength is to actaully doing the work. Take me and my cousin. I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering. He has a High School diploma. He is a mechanic for a living, and I design mechanical stuff. When it comes to working on the car, I can certainly explain how it should work better than he can, but he can fix things I could not. I use my EDU/Engineer and he uses his STR/Mechanics. It really does work that way from what I have seen.

Just a thought or two,
Duncan

[mchesebro]

On the topic of attributes vs. skills. I can remember from US Army basic, the service can teach anyone to fire a weapon. That is a skill. The ones who did it best are the ones with enough strength to hang on to it and not let the recoil beat them to death. The people who did best where not the really small ones who could swarm over the obsticle course due to better agility. Skills would be the training to do something, while the attribute is an enabler. Look at language. It is the ability to make yourself understood. CHA helps with that, or even EDU (language classes), but INT would seem to be better for figuring out what the other guy said, not for doing the talking. As stated, the skill/atb list seems to be more for game ballance so that one atb does not overwhelm the others in importance. Who remembers PC's max/mining? Again, the rules are complicated enough without having to average different sets of atb for all the skills. My group didn't ask to many questions about it, but we kept that portion of the mechanics pretty transparent for the players. Of coures YMMV.

[Marcus Bone]

Hi All...

I have been watching with interest the discussion on skills and their controlling attributes, and thought I should make a few comments based on some of the new rules we are playtesting for 3rd edition.

First, let me say that I agree with the observation that some of the existing controlling attributes and skills don't really 'match'. This is mainly an observation based on years of playing Dark Conspiracy, and the general feedback received from those 'one-off' players you play with at conventions. As a result of this sort of feedback, in addition to our own ideas on updating DC, we have been playing with a new set of derived attributes call 'APTITUDES'.

To explain this concept, each Aptitude (of which there are seven) is the average of two Attributes, and represent the character's natural abilities or, as the title so correctly points out, their aptitude in certain areas of ‘life’. As an example, the Computer Use skill would be listed under the MANIPULATIVE (AGL+INT/2) Aptitude list, while the skill Programming (as in writing and testing computer applications) would be part of the TECHNICAL (EDU+INT/2) Aptitude list.

System-wise, Aptitudes will be used exactly like the existing controlling Attribute mechanic, with the only addition that the Aptitudes will be calculated during character creation. There is, of course, a bit of skill realignment associated to this, and perhaps even the addition of a few more skill points to assign during character creation (as averaging two attributes will generally give a lower value than the exist controlling attribute mechanic).

Anyhow, this is just a playtest idea at the moment and will be fully tested during the upcoming playtesting programme. Until this time, however, your feedback/ideas/comments are more than welcome.

Marcus Bone

[Antenna]

Just a sidenote the average of two attributes would be written as following

(STR + INT)/2

And not as (STR + INT/2)

The later tells pratically mathematically speaking full value of Strength and half the Intelligence. Hope this won't be a typo in the new edition becouse it will be a flaw big enough to get most people confused.

I could still see the use of the later if all aptitudes would be based on a any attribute and Intelligence. In that case all skills would partly be based on intelligence. But really we where speaking of an average of values.

Antenna

[Marcus Bone]

Just a sidenote the average of two attributes would be written as following

(STR + INT)/2

And not as (STR + INT/2)

The later tells pratically mathematically speaking full value of Strength and half the Intelligence. Hope this won't be a typo in the new edition becouse it will be a flaw big enough to get most people confused.

Right you are... that was my fault and the fact I had isolated the clause with the brackets...

Rest assured that elsewhere I have written it correctly

Marcus

P.S. No feedback on how you think this might work?

[mchesebro]

Sounds interesting. How will fatigue and injury affect them? If a "physical" and a "mental" atribute are averaged aren't there times when only one side will be affected (sorry, haven't had a chance to look up the orignal mechanic on that)? Also, with the realignment of skills, will you include a conversion table from the original set to the new? Just a few questions that come to mind.

[Antenna]

Just a sidenote the average of two attributes would be written as following

(STR + INT)/2

And not as (STR + INT/2)

The later tells pratically mathematically speaking full value of Strength and half the Intelligence. Hope this won't be a typo in the new edition becouse it will be a flaw big enough to get most people confused.

Right you are... that was my fault and the fact I had isolated the clause with the brackets...

Rest assured that elsewhere I have written it correctly

Marcus

P.S. No feedback on how you think this might work?

Of course I can give feedback =)

I see the need of getting the values more or less true to what really is the real world (even if that is mearly impossible in rulewise way for RPGs). I would really wanna know what these 7 apptitudes would be first ? Is there "physical" and "mental" apptitudes and are there mixes between those two sides of looking on the original DC chars ? When speaking of a physical char I speak of a char that has a lot of skills in STR, AGI and CON. And when I speak of a mental char I speak of values in INT, CHA, EDU and EMP. The feedback I would give with the knowledge you given me is that it would work better for the referee to not have to explain for those who have a different view on how things will work (example: why is Small Arms attached to Strength etc). Still it is only a way to look on a problem how to solve the way to create a character to be "gripable" for the player. Myself has been thinking in the same way of mixing the attributes in that maner. Most players would try to get a char that get the best values (at least in my games couse you need the best char you can think up with). In one way I would try to get a conversion rule that in the old system to the new system you apply -3 to the values to get the DC3 stats.

POFF

Telephone

/POFF

I can see a problwm with the average of values. The Minmaxers of the game will use this rule to get the best possible char. As a rule from the DC1 book I don't allow values lower then 3 (if you want to play a char with lesser values in one attribute you are disabled in one way) And you cannot choose a value higher then 9 from the beginning of the charcreation (of course you can train physical attributes).

To get a idea of what I think about I would apply 2D4-1 in attribute creation, for the DC3 char, with the conversion rule that you add +3 to DC1 char from DC3 char and instead use following rule.

Attribute1 + Attribute2 for the Apptitudes.

In one way when you try to change rules you also must look on the rules in the boundries of the rule you wanna change. A lot of errors made when makeing houserules is the boundries where the rules you change and the rules you keep get somehow mixed up so you get a bastard of rules that gives future problems. Now I don't know what really you think of my input I maybe been to frank.

I just give that advice once more so you get the importance of makeing new rules useing old rules as a background for the new rules.

The boundries between the new rules and the old rules must be inspected clearly to get the new rules to work more or less frictionless.

Antenna

PS
While maybe be attracted of my rule... It can give values of succes that is higher then the original rules if you follow my suggestion. If this is a wish you have to look on other aspects of the game ? maybe use a D30 instead of a D20 and give away maybe 2 more skillpoints each trade. Well, now we are in such waters that DC3 would be a totally new game ? But useing the old D20 and say that +3 to each skill on a d20 in DC3 we can take, the values of what you can take in punish from a 9mmP is lowered at the same time if useing the smae way to calculate htipoints but with the new values.

Well, well... You see even my suggestion gives future problems if the problems is a solution you choose.
DS

Antenna

[Antenna]

Hmmmm, a fellow gamer found some bugs in my autofire Excel I have corrected them tonite

Antenna

[vadersson]

Hi all,

Sorry about being away but it was the 4th of July here in the States. Technically it was the 4th of July everywhere at some point, but it is more important in America.

So anyhow, I have read the proposal of Aptitudes and have thought about it some. Here are my thoughts. Please note that these are just how I see things and that your opinions may well be different.

First off this adds another layer between Attributes and Skills. In the DC/D20 system you just add the controlling Attribute to a skill to get your base target (or Asset). In the proposed system you average two (or more?) Attributes to get an Aptitude and then add that to a Skill to get your Asset. What does the game gain from adding another layer? If Aptitudes are important, why have Attributes at all? Just switch over to Aptitudes for everything and forget the Attributes. It seems like this makes the system more complicated and does not really add much.

Second I remember seeing somewhere that the game needed to be backwards compatible. Changing from controlling Attributes to controlling Aptitudes will require conversion. Also now skills will not line up very well as they are based on two Attributes. For example a marksman character with good strength might not be as good with a gun once the Skills move to the Aptitudes. It seems like Aptitudes goes against the principle of backward compatibility.

For me at least it all boils down to what is the game gaining from this type of major change. Is the system simpler to use? (I would say no given the new layer.) Does it better reflect reality? (Possibly, depending on skill allocations.) How does this work with older characters? (Players would need conversions, but likely a similar effect to just realigning the skills.) What are some alternatives? (Why not just realign which Attribute goes with each skill if you don’t like how they are?)

I guess my suggestion (since it does not help to just criticize is to examine where the Skill + Attribute system breaks down and see what really needs to change. Are so many of the Skills misaligned? What is really gained by changing that? Also keep in mind play balance.

Further questions would include: Should new skills be added (i.e. see the Traveller New Era skill list the GDW put out), how does moving skills around effect play balance, how does the fact that Empathy is generally half the level of the other Attributes effect Aptitude creation?

I look forward to more discussions.

Thanks,
Duncan

[vadersson]

Do we want to move the discussion of specific rules ideas to a seperate thread on this forum? This thread has become a real catch all.

Just a thought. Comment Moderator?

Thanks,
Duncan

[anthraxus]

I would say to break the Apitudes commentary out into another thread as it really doesn't bear on the idea of "Least Favorite Mechanic". As a matter of fact I will go ahead and create the new thread.