The Politics Skill.

[geeman]

At 11:12 AM 7/1/2002 -0500, you wrote:

> > Despite what some people would probably describe as an pathological desire
> > to include new skills in my part :)
>
>Its an affliction I like to call polyskillmania. You can never have too
>many skills.

I`d generally agree so long as those skills are useful, playable and most
importantly fun, I don`t see any problem with having a lot of them. The
system I use has about 60 skills, compared to the 42 skills presented in
the PHB. That`s a little deceptive, though, because 3e has a few skills
that have a particular category (knowledge, religion or profession, sailor)
which really makes for an infinite number of possible skills, limited only
by the dictates of the DM. I probably have fifteen or twenty skills with a
"category" requirement after them in addition to a system of subskills and
specialties that really make it much easier to reach "an infinite number"
of possible skills.

The big problem with changes to the skill system, of course, is with the
number of skill points available to various character classes. I
personally think that most 3e character classes are lacking in skill points
even for it`s limited number of skills, so I want to increase the skill
points available anyway, but I`m trying to balance such things with class
abilities, hit dice, and the rest of the class features, and that`s not as
easy as it sounds. Character classes seem to be written up without much
concern towards balancing them out, really. At least, the effort to
balance them has been pretty much done at a "best guess" manner from what I
can tell.

The website you posted a while back (http://hiddenway.tripod.com/freeform/)
is the germ of a good idea, but gets it kind of backassward, assigning
point values to various class features under the assumption that they are
presently balanced rather than with an eye towards developing balanced
character classes, so I`ve been fiddling around with an alternate
point-based system for designing/balancing character classes in which hit
die are valued at 3-7 points for d4-d12, BAB costs 2-6 points for the slow
to fast progression rate, etc. It`s not meant to be a point based
character class system, but the plan is that it will help develop character
classes with some sort of logic to them. Eventually there has to be some
sort of judgement call in assigning point values to various class features,
but having some clue as to balance would be nice.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:52 PM


> I`d generally agree so long as those skills are useful, playable and most
> importantly fun, I don`t see any problem with having a lot of them.

Useless skills are self-correcting because no one takes them. Players tend
to find uses for the skills their characters do have, and avoid novel skills
until they experience the absence of that skill: "You mean none of use know
how to ski?" Playable is always nice, but as you mentioned earlier, often
the DM does the heavy lifting for their own skill system. Fun is the thing
that impacts the players he most.

> The big problem with changes to the skill system, of course, is with the
> number of skill points available to various character classes. I
> personally think that most 3e character classes are lacking in skill
points
> even for it`s limited number of skills

I rather like the limited number of skills and have been content to leave
things as they are. The why`s and wherefore`s should become apparent in a
moment.

> The website you posted a while back
(http://hiddenway.tripod.com/freeform/)
> is the germ of a good idea, but gets it kind of backassward, assigning
> point values to various class features under the assumption that they are
> presently balanced rather than with an eye towards developing balanced
> character classes

I think that the D&D mechanic is really about going down below castle
Greyhawk and fighting monsters, evading traps, and otherwise dungeoneering,
hence I find the classes balanced. Connecting this with what I mentioned
about skills, if I were to focus all my character build points in a pure
character concept, all fighter, all combat, what would I get? I`d get the
D&D fighter, with the mere 2 skill points. The same with the cleric and
wizard. So, when someone wants more skills, I think their progression of
other abilities (combat or spell prowess) should slow down. So, I would
look to the Aristocrat as the high skills fighter, at expert for a general
skills infusion for any character, and rogue as the all-skills character.

So, since many characters are rulers in BR, most characters are not pure
fighters, clerics, or wizards. Most fighters are actually 70% aristocrats.
Clerics and wizards often have as many as three levels of expert, including
their acolyte/apprentice beginings.

That`s my approach, YMMV.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Don`t take this personally. I have moved beyond criticizing any mods to your
particular rules and now adress general 3E issues.

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-07-02 02.52:

> Useless skills are self-correcting because no one takes them. Players tend
> to find uses for the skills their characters do have, and avoid novel skills
> until they experience the absence of that skill: "You mean none of use know
> how to ski?" Playable is always nice, but as you mentioned earlier, often
> the DM does the heavy lifting for their own skill system. Fun is the thing
> that impacts the players he most.
>

The problem with this approach is that the characters will inevitably end up
in situations where they look foolish/inadequate because they lack a certain
skill that the DM introduced. "What, no one of you bought this new Skiing
skill I told you about". This lets the DM look smug, but is no fun for the
players. Especially since many of these skills will only be used very
rarely.

> So, when someone wants more skills, I think their progression of
> other abilities (combat or spell prowess) should slow down. So, I would
> look to the Aristocrat as the high skills fighter, at expert for a general
> skills infusion for any character, and rogue as the all-skills character.
>

The problem is that the Aristcrat and particularily the Expert are not
PC-worthy classes. Compare the Expert and the Rogue - the Rogue has more
class skills, more skill points, fights as well, and has a LOAD of special
abilities on top.

The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my opinion. With the
regular classes, you know that one third-level character is about as good as
another. Why introduce a set of substandard classes where this does not
apply?

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 09:57 AM 7/2/2002 +0200, Carl Cramer wrote:

> > Useless skills are self-correcting because no one takes them. Players tend
> > to find uses for the skills their characters do have, and avoid novel
> skills
> > until they experience the absence of that skill: "You mean none of use know
> > how to ski?" Playable is always nice, but as you mentioned earlier, often
> > the DM does the heavy lifting for their own skill system. Fun is the thing
> > that impacts the players he most.
>
>The problem with this approach is that the characters will inevitably end
>up in situations where they look foolish/inadequate because they lack a
>certain skill that the DM introduced. "What, no one of you bought this new
>Skiing skill I told you about". This lets the DM look smug, but is no fun
>for the
>players. Especially since many of these skills will only be used very rarely.

I think the above condition is basically true, but it`s really not limited
to new skills only is it? Introducing new prestige classes, new feats,
even the items in a character`s inventory can all result in a situation in
which the players create PCs that wind up ill-prepared. Adding some new
skills can certainly result in the kind of situation you describe, but I`ve
run into the same problem given the current skill set. Is this made
substantially worse by adding new skills? Yes, if that`s all one
does. When making changes to the skill system one also needs to consider
how that will affect character classes, and having skills that overlap a
bit can also soften the blow considerably.

One of the things that would help the situation is if skill checks were
presented with multiple options in most situations. From time to time one
sees an adventure that has a DC 15 Knowledge, Nature or Wilderness Lore
check. That`s well and good, but one of the things I`d like to see more
often done in 3e/D20 is DCs presented for "related" skill checks. That is,
finding a particular flower might be a DC15 Knowledge, Nature or Wilderness
Lore check, a DC 20 Knowledge, Herbalist check, a DC 25 Alchemy check and a
DC 5 Find Particular Flower check.

This is particularly important for those occasional skill checks that are
at the crux of an adventure. Generally, crux skill checks should be
avoided, but I still see adventures in which getting to Act 2 requires
successfully accomplishing a particular check at the end of Act 1. There
should definitely be several possible skills and or methods of
accomplishing such an action.

Now, it would be really, really nice if there was a more intelligent and
articulated method of presenting skill checks that would interact with the
skill system. One could just describe a particular skill check as a "DC 20
Natural Environment check" and descriptions of various skills would note
that they can be used to make such a check and/or the bonus/penalty they
might get on performing them. Alchemy might get a -10 penalty on Natural
Environment checks. To me if you`re going to go with a skill system that`s
one of the ways to approach it. Ah, well. Maybe 4e.

> > So, when someone wants more skills, I think their progression of
> > other abilities (combat or spell prowess) should slow down. So, I would
> > look to the Aristocrat as the high skills fighter, at expert for a general
> > skills infusion for any character, and rogue as the all-skills character.
>
>The problem is that the Aristcrat and particularily the Expert are not
>PC-worthy classes. Compare the Expert and the Rogue - the Rogue has more
>class skills, more skill points, fights as well, and has a LOAD of special
>abilities on top.

It`s relatively easy to bump up the NPC classes to make them functional as
PC classes. I use a Noble PC class that I`ve posted before, and I`ve seen
PC versions of the Expert on dnd-l from time to time, though I admit I`ve
never really been all that happy with them.

>The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my opinion. With the
>regular classes, you know that one third-level character is about as good
>as another. Why introduce a set of substandard classes where this does not
>apply?

I don`t really mind NPC classes myself. Well, I`m not wild about the title
"NPC class" since I think any class should be an option for any character,
but there is something to be said for replacing the 0-level "commoner"
system with a set of classes "beneath" the PC level. I`ve been futzing
around with ECL and the ability score point buy method lately. How many
points to spend on ability scores is worth +1 ECL? How much for +2
ECL? Etc. I`m doing this for a couple of reasons aside from the obvious
benefits during character generation. The first is because I want players
to use the same points to buy their bloodline strength score, so having a
system of balanced points to spend on ability scores should answer
automatically what the ECL of a bloodline might be. The ECL is paid to get
the points to buy the bloodline. The second reason is because I want to
see how ability scores can effect CR, EL and how that interacts with
class. Which is a greater challenge the 10th level warrior with the
standard array of ability scores or a 7th level fighter with no score
greater than 14? I think I can determine this a bit more accurately using
a point system.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Carl says:

> The problem is that the Aristcrat and particularily the
> Expert are not PC-worthy classes. Compare the Expert and the
> Rogue - the Rogue has more class skills, more skill points,
> fights as well, and has a LOAD of special abilities on top.
>
> The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my
> opinion. With the regular classes, you know that one
> third-level character is about as good as another. Why
> introduce a set of substandard classes where this does not apply?

I agree with you on this Carl, however my solution would be to improve
the NPC classes, not ignore them.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Cramér" <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:57 AM


> The problem with this approach is that the characters will inevitably end
> up in situations where they look foolish/inadequate because they lack a
> certain skill that the DM introduced. "What, no one of you bought this
> new Skiing skill I told you about". This lets the DM look smug, but is no
> fun for the players. Especially since many of these skills will only be
used
> very rarely.

Actually I think its kind of mean to punish players for not indulging a DM`s
new toys. Sometimes players do insist on going into a region for which they
are unprepared. My experience tells me when players buy skills its because
of what the felt like they needed in the last adventure, not often what they
might need in the next adventure. My preference is to allow for multiple
ways to solve the same problem, Gary covered this well.

> The problem is that the Aristcrat and particularily the Expert are not
> PC-worthy classes. Compare the Expert and the Rogue - the Rogue has more
> class skills, more skill points, fights as well, and has a LOAD of special
> abilities on top.
>
> The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my opinion.

As both Gary and John mentioned, the solution is to beef up the NPC classes
to make them PC worthy. IMO, an NPC class should be viable non-adventuring
class. Commoner and Warrior are sensible alternatives for NPC`s whose names
we aren`t intended to really get to know. They appear in the credits as
peasant #5 and guard #2.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Magian]

>From: John Machin <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
>If you want to say (as THEY do) that politics is the struggle for power and
>that, therefore, all human interaction can be considered to be both (a)
>political and (B) a power struggle, then you can. I prefer, for the
>purposes of
>this discussion and for BR in general, to consider politics to be mainly
>about
>government, or rather governance and the interactions between and
>activities of
>those involved with governance, be they noble, guilder, priest, or magus.

That all depends on what level of analysis you take towards politics whether
it be system, state, or individual. They all play a part in politics as we
well know. However as a skill itself I think we could measure it at the
individual level since after all it is the individual using the skill.
Regardless of what level the skill is being used at the individual must
still rely upon his skill in order to "spin" things his way. The audience
are individuals also regardless of the level of state they are privilage to
they have minds subject to ideas. Thus on the drive of this topic for the
spin skill I would say that it should be placed on the individual level
since that is what makes up governments.

As for the definition of politics being the struggle for power I would like
to take a different approach, please bare with me. Like Marx once said,
Religion is the opiate of the masses. I happen to agree with this in the
sense that the masses tend to use religion as an opiate instead of a way to
evolve themselves. Therefore politics like religion is defined by how the
individual(s) use it. (again more of my philosophical banter)

Back on track, I do think that a skill used for dimplomatic, persuation, and
such things as performance (as has been mentioned) take away from
opportunities to roleplay things out even if it gets repetitous. I find on
the domain(state) level of roleplaying things like that are the lifeblood of
the roleplaying between factions and a persons own imagination and devotion
to the game should be what measure the success not a rating system on paper
and a roll of the die. Then again rules are always fun to make up in hopes
they imitate reality.

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Magian]

>From: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
>It sounds more like what I called the Oratory skill (and a rose by any
>other
>name ...). The Oratory skill is designed for addressing groups, rather
>than
>interacting with individuals. You might use it to address a crowd, a
>meeting of the Estates, the Imperial Senate, an assembly of congregants at
>the Temple of Haelyn on a feast day, and so forth.


I agree. I think that oration is the common word used for the ancients when
they attempted to persuade an audience or simply address them. I like that
term.

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Magian]

Ok Gary I think I get what you mean.


>From: Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
>Hm. There are plenty of people that are talented at spinning a situation
>who don`t have any particular skill at persuasion or debate, which is
>usually my signal that I need a separate skill. Rhetoric, though... that
>might be more in the direction I`m going for. I`m going for a more "smoke
>filled room" kind of thing. The movers and shakers behind the scenes (and
>their lackeys) who manipulate the presentation of events.

First off I am not up on the 3E skill stuff yet but from what I have heard I
can get an idea. (poor me trying to figure NWN)

That perform skill sounds generalized enough to use as my base. Perhaps we
could use a generic name like that.

Rhetoric seems agreeable at the moment. Now how about different levels of
this? Diplomatic rhetoric is between factions regardless of political level
(system, state, individual) it simply means foreign relations between
domains or oranizations. Religious rhetoric(dogma) specifically for the
clerical. Military rhetoric for military operations and commands.
Political rhetoric for a factions appearance to the outsiders. Haggling
rhetoric for markets. et cetera.

Of course all this diasecting may not be what you are looking for. But the
base rhetoric is a generalized version for the adventurer to take. Say
perhaps a leader type character who is interested in negotiating with
others, either party members or factions like lords of the land seeking
adventurer aid or villans about to foolishly destroy the party without
thinking first. Or perhaps it could be used for evil characters to conceal
their true motives allowing them to operate with good characters in a party.
Underground rhetoric (street talk) could be used to get places in the
shadow world of a city. And so on and so forth unless of course there is a
3E skill that covers what my rantings above are about.

Maybe this is what you are looking for?

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Magian]

I don`t like the idea of cannons in Birthright, even netbooks.

;-)


>From: Carl Cramér <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
>Reply-To: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
><BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
>To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>Subject: Re: The Politics Skill.
>Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:29:17 +0200
>
>I don`t mind if you or anyone changes the system. I think it is fine if we
>can discuss such changes here on the list. But if we want to attract new
>players to the setting, any netbooks and such that we publish should stay
>as
>close to established 3E mechanics as possible.
>
>Blooded characters need special rules - no question about that. Thus I
>think
>it is better to introduce a set of special rules for blooded characters,
>and
>include access to the Diplomacy skill (and a few other skill sueful to
>regents) as a part of this package. This is a minor tweak, much less than
>the introduction of new skills.
>
>However, nothing prevents each of us from playing Birthright using any set
>of rules - we could use the 1979 edition of Chivalry and Sorcery if we
>fancy
>that. But if we do, we should not bring up rules from our home campaigns as
>canon in netbooks and such.
>
>/Carl
>
>************************************************* ***************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.




__________________________________________________ _______________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.