Another Path: Skill list and Resolution system

[u/LucasLeGentil]

Hello, can you give me your thought and opinion about the skill list and resolution system of my game. My objective was to have fast resolution with small number and few to no calculations.

Skills are separated in two independent groups, with each having its own pool of points to distribute. (I already talked about this choice here)

Exploration Skills

• Strength: Ability to exert raw physical power. (Examples: lifting a heavy object or breaking down a door)
• Agility: Ability to move quickly and supplely. (Examples: climbing onto a rooftop or outrunning pursuers)
• Dexterity: Ability to perform precise manual tasks. (Examples: picking a lock or forging a document)
• Stealth: Ability to avoid being noticed. (Examples: moving silently or hiding in the darkness)
• Endurance: Ability to withstand hardship. (Examples: enduring a grueling journey or resisting poison)
• Knowledge: Ability to recall information. (Examples: knowing the history or the properties of a plant)
• Lucidity: Ability to analyse and reason. (Examples: examining tracks or understanding a mechanism)
• Perception: Ability to notice things through your senses. (Examples: spotting movement or hearing a distant voice)
• Insight: Ability to discern true intentions. (Examples: detecting a lie or recognising suspicious behavior)
• Charm: Ability to earn the trust of others. (Examples: calming an animal or persuading someone)
• Presence: Ability to intimidate or command attention. (Examples: intimidating a creature or delivering a speech)
• Luck: Ability to benefit from chance. (Examples: finding the correct path or winning a lottery)

Combat Skills

• Melee Attack: Ability to make Attacks against targets within melee Range (less than 2 meters). Any Action intended to injure or otherwise hinder a target is considered an Attack.
• Ranged Attack: Ability to make Attacks against targets beyond melee Range.
• Melee Defense: Ability to block or evade Attacks made by opponents within melee Range.
• Ranged Defense: Ability to anticipate and evade Attacks made by opponents beyond melee Range.
• Vigor: Ability to withstand injuries and recover from them.
• Power: Ability to wield and resist supernatural Powers.

Resolution system

As for the resolution system:

Each skill have a value between -1 and 3.

Whenever a Roll is required, the GM specifies which Skill applies and the difficulty of the roll (between 1 and 6). The value of the Skill determines the type of Roll: 

• Skill = 3: Roll 3 dice and keep the value of the highest one as the Result of the Roll.
• Skill = 2: Roll 2 dice and keep the value of the highest one as the Result of the Roll.
• Skill = 1: Roll 1 die and keep its value as the Result of the Roll.
• Skill = 0: Roll 2 dice and keep the value of the lowest one as the Result of the Roll.
• Skill = -1: Roll 3 dice and keep the value of the lowest one as the Result of the Roll.

You can find the whole chapters about skills and resolutions in the full document at pages 3 and 4 : https://ltesta.itch.io/another-path

Thanks for reading

[u/InherentlyWrong]

A couple of minor things come to mind reading this.

Firstly, I'm hesitant about 'luck' as a skill. Thematically it feels kind of weird, how do you 'train' Luck?

Second are you sure you want to split combat skills up between attack and defense? To my mind it isn't really an interesting choice, it's just the thing you have to pay. And it potentially creates a divide that makes ranged characters even stronger, since if they position well they'll rarely need to worry about melee defense, giving them more points to put elsewhere.

Also the Power skill being the only one related to offense and defense for it's specialisation feels a bit odd.

I've had multiple rants in the past about how I'm hesitant about there being a dedicated "Don't die" stat/skill like Vigor, since it risks being a fun tax on a character. "Take this skill to keep playing the game" ends up being a pretty mandatory choice, while it's competing for more interesting skill options.

And as a final thing, I'm not sure about skill -1. Skill 1 to 3 makes sense, you roll that many dice and keep the best. Skill 0 being 'roll 2 and keep the worst' makes a lot of sense as well. But skill -1 being 'roll 3 dice and keep the worst' only makes sense in context of the wider list of values, it's not something I would intuit. Also, do you really need it? The difference between skill 0 and skill -1 is tiny compared to the difference between skill 1 and skill 0. You can probably get away with the skill range being 0 to 3, and it'll be a lot more intuitive.

[u/Kameleon_fr → u/InherentlyWrong]

Seconding every remark made by InherentlyWrong (a very misleading name!) and adding a small one:

It feels wrong to me to have a single Knowledge skill. Being good at recalling obscure historical events or memorizing the complex laws of a foreign kingdom should not automatically make you know the medicinal properties of plants, where they grow and how to harvest them.

[u/LucasLeGentil → u/Kameleon_fr]

I agree that it's not the most realist approach, but I chose simplicity over simulation. It's still a game, after all, and I'd like to avoid having 60 different Skills just to make character creation more realistic.

[u/Kameleon_fr → u/LucasLeGentil]

Of course, it's a trade-off. I'd argue that merely adding 1 Skill to have something like Knowledge (civilization) and Knowledge (nature) would already greatly improve believability without adding much complexity, but it's a matter of preference at this point.

One other remark that I forgot to make before: I don't really like the Lucidity skill, because I feel like it infringes on the players' ability to analyse and reason. The examples you give (examining tracks or a mechanism) seem much more like a use of Knowledge to me. After all, to understand a machine or tracks, you must be familiar with tech or tracking, or no amount of deductive ability will help you. And the actions that would really belong to Lucidity, like piecing together clues or solving puzzles, are things that are much more fun for the players to solve themselves.

[u/LucasLeGentil → u/InherentlyWrong]

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I'll try to explain the reasoning behind my choices.

First, regarding the "Luck" Skill, I used to share your opinion before adding it. However, after testing it, I found that as long as the GM doesn't overuse it, it doesn't cause any issues. Players also tend to feel that this Skill adds fun to the game without breaking immersion.

Then for the division between attack and defense in combat Skills, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "you have to pay". Nothing is forced. Most combinations are viable as long as the character can put themselves in situations where they have the advantage.

As for balancing melee and ranged combat, I agree that it might seem unbalanced without the rest of the document, but this is offset by the fact that melee attacks generally deal more damage and they can use a shield.

Same thing for Power, it make more sense with the rest of the document. Power doesn't actually replace Attack or defense skills.

Vigor is not mandatory, it is just one of the way to postpone death, like the two defense skills.

Finally, allowing Skills to go down to -1 provides more flexibility during character creation. It also has a greater impact than you might think, as it drastically increases the chances of rolling a critical failure (a double 1 including the die kept as the result). And finally, as you mentioned, it creates a sense of consistency by maintaining symmetry between the different types of rolls available.

[u/InherentlyWrong → u/LucasLeGentil]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "you have to pay". Nothing is forced

(...)

Vigor is not mandatory, it is just one of the way to postpone death, like the two defense skills.

In my head I refer to this kind of thing as a Fun Tax. I as a player enjoy doing [the cool thing], so I want to spend my points on stuff that lets me do [the cool thing]. But if I spend all my points on [the cool thing], then I have fewer points to spend on [not dying]. If my character dies, they don't get to do [the cool thing] anyway, so I have to decide if I want to sacrifice my options for [the cool thing] for the sake of [not dying].

If I make that decision, my character is not able to do as many cool things, so I can keep playing. I'm forced to choose between a more interesting character, and a character who stays around for longer. Hence it's a fun tax, it's the tax I pay, reducing my fun, so I can keep playing.

So no, a player doesn't "have to pay" in the sense that there is no rule saying they must, but if I want to keep playing the game with a character I presumably like, then I 'have' to pay the fun tax, otherwise the character dies quicker and I'm not having fun playing the character then anyway.

You yourself say these are ways to 'postpone death'. So I'm having to choose between a character who does cool things, and a character who does less cool stuff but survives longer.

Finally, allowing Skills to go down to -1 provides more flexibility during character creation. It also has a greater impact than you might think, as it drastically increases the chances of rolling a critical failure (a double 1 including the die kept as the result). And finally, as you mentioned, it creates a sense of consistency by maintaining symmetry between the different types of rolls available.

My feeling is that symmetry only exists so long as the players are looking at a table of the skill values. Intuitively the input of skill value from 0 to 3 to the output of what they actually roll makes sense. "I have skill rating from 1 to 3? I roll that many dice" + "I have a skill value of 0, I am rolling with 'a penalty'", that makes sense. There is no intuitive connection between "I have a skill value of -1. I roll 3 dice." If you weren't looking at the list of what skill value equals what number of dice rolled, you would never assume that -1 means "Roll 3 dice".

And keep in mind that unless your game is intended for solo play, people typically won't be rolling their -1 skills unless they absolutely have to. If the PCs are all together as a group and need to recall information, we'll get the +2 guy to roll the check, not the -1 guy. You can get away without the negative symmetry, and including it just becomes a point of potential confusion for new players.

[u/LucasLeGentil → u/InherentlyWrong]

I understand your point of view, but I don't agree.

First of all, I don't think [not dying] and [the cool thing] are necessarily opposites. Personally, I think tanking can be just as fun and satisfying as dealing massive damage and I know a lot of player are like me (AC stacker in D&D are pretty common).

Also, although it isn't covered in this post, the rules governing death in my system aren't particularly punishing, so players don't feel as much at risk when they have low HP as they would in other games. The goal is to reward players who invest points in Vigor rather than punish those who don't.

And finally, if we were to remove the "Don't Die" Skill, what would the alternative be? In an earlier version of my system, I had a similar thought and standardized HP based on character level, so that all characters had the same amount of HP and only armor could affect their ability to take damage. However, after a few playtests, I wasn't satisfied with the result, which led me to the current version.

Thanks again for your time, it's interesting to hear perspectives that differ from mine and those of my players.

[u/Adept_Leave → u/InherentlyWrong]

All solid remarks. About the mechanic, I'd simply propose a more intuitive phrasing:

1. You always roll a D6 to do a test. Your result needs to meet or beat the difficulty (1 to 6).

2. There are 5 skill levels: Terrible, Bad, Average, Good and Great.

3. If your skill is Terrible, you roll 2 extra dice, and take the lowest result. If your skill is Bad, etc.

That would already help a lot with intuitive play.

[u/Fun_Carry_4678]

You seem to be missing a "Healing" skill, that comes up in most TTRPGs.
I am also concerned that realistically these "skills" should be related to each other. For example, I have a hard time seeing how someone could have a -1 in both Strength and Endurance but somehow have a +3 in Vigor, but your rules allow that. I feel like your combat skills should be derived, that is they are determined by combining your exploration skills mathematically.

[u/LucasLeGentil → u/Fun_Carry_4678]

I understand, but I don't consider healing to be a Skill in its own right. I see it more as one of the many Proficiencies a character can have, just like blacksmithing or knowing another language.

When a character wants to heal someone, they make a roll based on the type of treatment involved: Dexterity for surgery, or Knowledge for treating a poison for examples.

As for making combat and exploration Skills dependent on each other, that's exactly what I want to avoid, in order to allow for as much variety as possible in character creation.

A character can be effective with a one-handed weapon in many different ways, and I don't want to force characters into predefined archetypes. In D&D, a Warlock needs a high Charisma score to be effective in combat, but as a result, they will also be at least decent at the four skills that depend on Charisma (Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion). So if I want to create a Warlock who is a terrible liar, I have to work around the rules to make it happen.

Of course, my choices can lead to some unusual combinations, but I like to see it as a strength rather than a weakness.

[u/The-High-Inquisitor]

I believe I wrote up your dice resolution correctly here in Anydice. Take a look.

https://anydice.com/program/44210

Here's the likely outcomes of getting at least X using your system, rounded to a percent for simplicity:

At least a 2 Sk3: 99% Sk2: 97% Sk1: 83% Sk0: 69% Sk-1: 58%

At least a 3 Sk3: 96% Sk2: 89% Sk1: 67% Sk0: 44% Sk-1: 30%

At least a 4 Sk3: 88% Sk2: 75% Sk1: 50% Sk0: 25% Sk-1: 13%

At least a 5 Sk3: 70% Sk2: 56% Sk1: 33% Sk0: 11% Sk-1: 4%

At least a 6 Sk3: 42% Sk2: 31% Sk1: 17% Sk0: 3% Sk-1: 1%

That spread lends itself to a very particular play experience: high skills rarely fail, and low skills rarely succeed. Most games aim to have a player's success between 40 and 70 percent, but it's not a hard rule. Just consider how to explain to your players that they should expect to fail almost all of the time if they have skill 0 or lower.

[u/LucasLeGentil → u/The-High-Inquisitor]

Thank you for taking the time to do this but I already did it. The table of these results is even included in the full document of my game.

And I'm aware that Skill levels have a much greater impact on the chances of success in my game than they do in most other systems. That was actually part of my goal when designing it. I like there to be a real difference between someone who's bad at something and someone who's specialized in it.

[u/The-High-Inquisitor → u/LucasLeGentil]

No problem! Dunno why anyone would be downvoting you, sorry about that. I'm never sure if people take the time to check out their probabilities, took me all of five minutes so no worries. If you like where the numbers are at, then that's one less nail to hammer in!