Re: [Forge-main] Skills List [LONG]

[Ricardo Gladwell]

On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 17:52, Ed Spader wrote:
> First, I have read through all of the old posts for
> the past 3 months, as well as the core ruleset as it
> stands now and very much like what has been set thus
> far.

Thanks for the nice remarks and taking the time to read through the
material :) If you have any comments about some of the decisions made so
far please do not hesitate to make them known.

> --- Ricardo Gladwell <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> 
> > Skill groups are also
> > skills themselves,
> > their rating equal to ever two skill ranks you have
> > for sub-skills from
> > that group.
> 
> By this, do you mean that the skill group is an
> average of skills contained within the group? If yes,
> then I would agree that this is the way to go, and I
> very much like the concept. For example, a PC with
> skills in sculpture and dancing (art) would be more
> adept at attempting a skill he/she does not currently
> have, but falls under the art category (for example,
> painting). In other words, 

Fundamentally, yes - you explained it far better than I. Averages would
perhaps be too complicated to calculate. Rather, I suggest that for each
three ranks in skills purchased from a skill group gives you one rank in
the generic skill for that group. So, Art (Dancing) 3 and Art (Painting)
3 would give you Arts 2.

There is a slight problem with anachronisms for this: for example, a
Weapons skill list with an associated Weapons generic skill would mean
that an fantasy fighter with Sword 3 and Axe 3, would have a Weapons 2
rank for using any kind of weapon, including firearms! Similarly for
Science - our modern Science wouldn't compare, for example, with
hypothetical far-future sciences.

Instead, I suggest the following suggestion to the problem. Have the
following skill groups:

Animals
Firearms
Melee Weapons
Ranged Weapons
Sciences
High Sciences
Ancient Crafts/Trades
Land Vehicles
Boats
Modern Vehicles

> I think a "Trades" or similarly-named skill would go
> nicely here. Unless that fits under Knowledges.

That sort of fit under Crafts, although I prefer the term Trades. We
should use that instead.

-- 
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
address@hidden