Cascading Skills

[atpollard]

I was thinking about the cascading skills in CT. It never made sense that someone could master the semiautomatic pistol but was completely unfamiliar with a revolver (just one example of a common problem). There have been numerous official and unofficial attempts at correcting this. Here is one more.

What if we assume that specialization in a skill is directly related to increased proficiency? If you are a novice shooter barely able to group your shots in a 12 inch circle at 100 yards, any rifle will do - a semiautomatic rifle is as good as a lever action carbine or a match-grade bolt action rifle. The shooter is the limiting factor. If you are a Rifle-6 shooter able to group your shots in a 1 inch circle at 1000 yards, using an unfamiliar rifle will drastically affect your accuracy - you need YOUR rifle with the custom stock fit to your specifications to shoot your best.

In CT game terms, this would require the skill to become more specialized at each level.
Firearms-1.
Rifle-2.
Bolt-action rifle-3.
9mm Bolt-action rifle-4
Imperial Arms 9mm Bolt-action rifle-5
Each level of skill includes all previous generalizations of the skill, so the character with [Imperial Arms 9mm Bolt-action rifle-5] could shoot a semi-automatic rifle at [Rifle-2] or a SMG at [Firearms-1].

Any thoughts?

 

[atpollard]

I was thinking about the cascading skills in CT. It never made sense that someone could master the semiautomatic pistol but was completely unfamiliar with a revolver (just one example of a common problem). There have been numerous official and unofficial attempts at correcting this. Here is one more.

What if we assume that specialization in a skill is directly related to increased proficiency? If you are a novice shooter barely able to group your shots in a 12 inch circle at 100 yards, any rifle will do - a semiautomatic rifle is as good as a lever action carbine or a match-grade bolt action rifle. The shooter is the limiting factor. If you are a Rifle-6 shooter able to group your shots in a 1 inch circle at 1000 yards, using an unfamiliar rifle will drastically affect your accuracy - you need YOUR rifle with the custom stock fit to your specifications to shoot your best.

In CT game terms, this would require the skill to become more specialized at each level.
Firearms-1.
Rifle-2.
Bolt-action rifle-3.
9mm Bolt-action rifle-4
Imperial Arms 9mm Bolt-action rifle-5
Each level of skill includes all previous generalizations of the skill, so the character with [Imperial Arms 9mm Bolt-action rifle-5] could shoot a semi-automatic rifle at [Rifle-2] or a SMG at [Firearms-1].

Any thoughts?

 

[jarednoble]

You know, I _really_ like this as a general concept. I wonder how this would scale outside of the weapons skills.

I guess it's time to take another look at the skill list and the related cascades.

 

[jarednoble]

You know, I _really_ like this as a general concept. I wonder how this would scale outside of the weapons skills.

I guess it's time to take another look at the skill list and the related cascades.

 

[aramis]

It becomes a major pain in the arse... which is why it disappeared from later editions of paranoia.

 

[aramis]

It becomes a major pain in the arse... which is why it disappeared from later editions of paranoia.

 

[Supplement Four]

I think it's an interesting, creative, idea. I like how you're thinking about it.

I have to agree with William (Aramis), though. I think it will be a bit of a pain to keep up with (and these days, I'm all about keeping things simple and easy). It seems like a lot of work would be required to make those skill growth trees as a character goes up--not to mention going over ever existing skill that each of your players have and changing them.

I imagine player conversations like this:

GM: "Hmm...you've got SMG-4? Well, you'd better pick which exact SMG you are skilled with."

P: "Why is that? In the real world, I can pick up an MP5, which I'm familiar with, and use an Uzi just about as well. In the game, if I buy a TL 10 SMG on the world of Aramis and then buy another SMG on some other planet of at least TL 10, shouldn't there be at least a chance that I can use both weapons equally."

GM starts to scratch his head.




I guess what I would object to with the idea is that Classic Traveller skills are very broad. They're meant to be broad. You don't get many skills as a CT character, and by that very fact, the skills you do get have to be broad.

The Communications skill, for instance, is used for both operating comm systems as well as fixing them...just like the Computer skill.

If you start making CT skills that specific and focused, I think it will hamper the playability of the game (unbalance the game in a negative direction).

In order to fix this, you'd have to allow more skills--and start breaking up skills like commmunications in to "operation" and "repair" versions of the same skill.

In short, if I'm making my point clearly (and I think I'm rambling more than making a concise point), I think doing this will cause more problems in a CT game than many GMs will be willing to mess with.

But, as I said above, I DO LIKE the idea...I just don't think it's practical for a CT game.

 

[Supplement Four]

I think it's an interesting, creative, idea. I like how you're thinking about it.

I have to agree with William (Aramis), though. I think it will be a bit of a pain to keep up with (and these days, I'm all about keeping things simple and easy). It seems like a lot of work would be required to make those skill growth trees as a character goes up--not to mention going over ever existing skill that each of your players have and changing them.

I imagine player conversations like this:

GM: "Hmm...you've got SMG-4? Well, you'd better pick which exact SMG you are skilled with."

P: "Why is that? In the real world, I can pick up an MP5, which I'm familiar with, and use an Uzi just about as well. In the game, if I buy a TL 10 SMG on the world of Aramis and then buy another SMG on some other planet of at least TL 10, shouldn't there be at least a chance that I can use both weapons equally."

GM starts to scratch his head.




I guess what I would object to with the idea is that Classic Traveller skills are very broad. They're meant to be broad. You don't get many skills as a CT character, and by that very fact, the skills you do get have to be broad.

The Communications skill, for instance, is used for both operating comm systems as well as fixing them...just like the Computer skill.

If you start making CT skills that specific and focused, I think it will hamper the playability of the game (unbalance the game in a negative direction).

In order to fix this, you'd have to allow more skills--and start breaking up skills like commmunications in to "operation" and "repair" versions of the same skill.

In short, if I'm making my point clearly (and I think I'm rambling more than making a concise point), I think doing this will cause more problems in a CT game than many GMs will be willing to mess with.

But, as I said above, I DO LIKE the idea...I just don't think it's practical for a CT game.

 

[Supplement Four]

BTW, in my game, I tend to go in the other direction than what you suggest here.

If a character has a "like" skill, then I automatically let them use it as a M-1 skill (a minus one skill).

This keeps the skills broad, is in line with Traveller cannon (this is done with other skills in Traveller and MegaTraveller, such as the RobotOps skill or the Pilot/Ship's Boat skill), and is very easy to implement.

For example...

Joey has Rifle-3, but Joey doesn't have a rifle at hand. He's only be able to pick up an SMG.

When I'm GMing, I have no problem with Joey using an SMG as if he had SMG-2 (Rifle-3 minus one).

Sometimes, I'll even see extended connections at M-2. For example, it's logical to assume that Joey's Rifle-3 expertise would aid him somewhat with an autopistol, should Joey pick one up. I wouldn't have a problem with Joey picking up an autpistol and using it as if he had AutoPistol-1 (Rifle-3 minus two).

The bare minimum would be Skill-0, of course, since all normal weapons are default skills.

 

[Supplement Four]

BTW, in my game, I tend to go in the other direction than what you suggest here.

If a character has a "like" skill, then I automatically let them use it as a M-1 skill (a minus one skill).

This keeps the skills broad, is in line with Traveller cannon (this is done with other skills in Traveller and MegaTraveller, such as the RobotOps skill or the Pilot/Ship's Boat skill), and is very easy to implement.

For example...

Joey has Rifle-3, but Joey doesn't have a rifle at hand. He's only be able to pick up an SMG.

When I'm GMing, I have no problem with Joey using an SMG as if he had SMG-2 (Rifle-3 minus one).

Sometimes, I'll even see extended connections at M-2. For example, it's logical to assume that Joey's Rifle-3 expertise would aid him somewhat with an autopistol, should Joey pick one up. I wouldn't have a problem with Joey picking up an autpistol and using it as if he had AutoPistol-1 (Rifle-3 minus two).

The bare minimum would be Skill-0, of course, since all normal weapons are default skills.

 

[atpollard]

For most of the cascading Skills in CT, the official rule books and equipment lists already provide the first three skill levels.

You already rolled a broad category during Character Creation – say “Blade Cbt” or “Gun Cbt” or “Vehicle”. All I propose is that you leave the skill as Blade Combat-1 (without selecting from the cascading list) and apply it as a level 1 skill in ALL blade weapons.

The second time you receive “Blade Cbt”, the character must now select a group of related weapons. The official books seem to already divide them into “Blades” and “Polearms”. A logical division would be “one-handed weapons” or “two-handed weapons”. In our example, the character might change Blade Combat-1 to “One-Handed Sword Combat-2”. This skill would apply as a level 2 skill in ALL one-handed blade weapons and as a level 1 skill in ALL other blade combat weapons.

The third time you receive “Blade Cbt”, the character must now select a single weapon. In our example, the character might change One-Handed Sword Combat-2 to “Cutlass-3”. This skill would apply as a level 3 skill with the cutlass, as a level 2 skill in ALL one-handed blade weapons and as a level 1 skill in ALL other blade combat weapons.

Up to skill-3 requires nothing beyond what is already in the rules and a little common sense about what skills are related. I thought it might add a little color for skills of level 4 and above to require the player to provide more detail.

 

[atpollard]

For most of the cascading Skills in CT, the official rule books and equipment lists already provide the first three skill levels.

You already rolled a broad category during Character Creation – say “Blade Cbt” or “Gun Cbt” or “Vehicle”. All I propose is that you leave the skill as Blade Combat-1 (without selecting from the cascading list) and apply it as a level 1 skill in ALL blade weapons.

The second time you receive “Blade Cbt”, the character must now select a group of related weapons. The official books seem to already divide them into “Blades” and “Polearms”. A logical division would be “one-handed weapons” or “two-handed weapons”. In our example, the character might change Blade Combat-1 to “One-Handed Sword Combat-2”. This skill would apply as a level 2 skill in ALL one-handed blade weapons and as a level 1 skill in ALL other blade combat weapons.

The third time you receive “Blade Cbt”, the character must now select a single weapon. In our example, the character might change One-Handed Sword Combat-2 to “Cutlass-3”. This skill would apply as a level 3 skill with the cutlass, as a level 2 skill in ALL one-handed blade weapons and as a level 1 skill in ALL other blade combat weapons.

Up to skill-3 requires nothing beyond what is already in the rules and a little common sense about what skills are related. I thought it might add a little color for skills of level 4 and above to require the player to provide more detail.

 

[atpollard]

Vehicle skills are handeled the same way:

Vehicle –1 (all vehicles)

Becomes Land Vehicle-2 or Water Vehicle-2 or Air Vehicle-2

Becomes Tracked Vehicle-3 or Large Watercraft-3 or Air Raft-3, etc.

Becomes Sport Car-4 or Two-masted sloop-4 or Single-engined jet-4, etc.

 

[atpollard]

Vehicle skills are handeled the same way:

Vehicle –1 (all vehicles)

Becomes Land Vehicle-2 or Water Vehicle-2 or Air Vehicle-2

Becomes Tracked Vehicle-3 or Large Watercraft-3 or Air Raft-3, etc.

Becomes Sport Car-4 or Two-masted sloop-4 or Single-engined jet-4, etc.

 

[atpollard]

I am indebted to Supplement Four, who pointed out in another thread that what I propose is not completely new to Classic Traveller.

Book 2 requires a character to select a specific weapon to be skilled in, like
Revolver-1 or Autopistol-1.

The Pistol skill in Book 4 combines both revolvers and autopistols into a single skill.

The Handgun skill in Book 5 combines revolvers, autopistols, body pistols and snub pistols.

All I am proposing is to allow ALL CHARACTERS access to a progression from Handgun-1 to Pistol-2 to Autopistol-3. See also the Combat Rifleman Skill.

And to expand the concept to include other cascade skills, like vehicles.

 

[atpollard]

I am indebted to Supplement Four, who pointed out in another thread that what I propose is not completely new to Classic Traveller.

Book 2 requires a character to select a specific weapon to be skilled in, like
Revolver-1 or Autopistol-1.

The Pistol skill in Book 4 combines both revolvers and autopistols into a single skill.

The Handgun skill in Book 5 combines revolvers, autopistols, body pistols and snub pistols.

All I am proposing is to allow ALL CHARACTERS access to a progression from Handgun-1 to Pistol-2 to Autopistol-3. See also the Combat Rifleman Skill.

And to expand the concept to include other cascade skills, like vehicles.

 

[jarednoble]

Originally posted by Aramis:
It becomes a major pain in the arse... which is why it disappeared from later editions of paranoia.

So _That's_ why is sounded familiar -

Paranoia (I only ever had the first edition) was the most fun I ever had reading a ruleset...I never actually played it, so I completely forgot about the skill cascade mechanic - and also can't make any comment about long-term usability...

Originally posted by Supplement Four
BTW, in my game, I tend to go in the other direction than what you suggest here.

If a character has a "like" skill, then I automatically let them use it as a M-1 skill (a minus one skill).

This keeps the skills broad, is in line with Traveller cannon (this is done with other skills in Traveller and MegaTraveller, such as the RobotOps skill or the Pilot/Ship's Boat skill), and is very easy to implement.

Hmmm...I thought the original idea was basically the same thing - Although I now see the difference in focus. In either case the basic goal is to allow skilled individuals access to similar, related skills - essentially broadening the few skills traveller characters typically have.

I think later rulesets expanded the number of defined 'cascades' - is that a mistaken impression?

 

[jarednoble]

Originally posted by Aramis:
It becomes a major pain in the arse... which is why it disappeared from later editions of paranoia.

So _That's_ why is sounded familiar -

Paranoia (I only ever had the first edition) was the most fun I ever had reading a ruleset...I never actually played it, so I completely forgot about the skill cascade mechanic - and also can't make any comment about long-term usability...

Originally posted by Supplement Four
BTW, in my game, I tend to go in the other direction than what you suggest here.

If a character has a "like" skill, then I automatically let them use it as a M-1 skill (a minus one skill).

This keeps the skills broad, is in line with Traveller cannon (this is done with other skills in Traveller and MegaTraveller, such as the RobotOps skill or the Pilot/Ship's Boat skill), and is very easy to implement.

Hmmm...I thought the original idea was basically the same thing - Although I now see the difference in focus. In either case the basic goal is to allow skilled individuals access to similar, related skills - essentially broadening the few skills traveller characters typically have.

I think later rulesets expanded the number of defined 'cascades' - is that a mistaken impression?

 

[Eyeball]

I personally like skill trees a lot and really enjoyed the realistic flavour of Paranoia. I used it extensively, never found it to be painful. I've enjoyed it in other rpgs and used it as the basis for a couple of my own rpgs.

The system you describe atpolard sounds very workable.

Although you could go down further and further specialisations, you might consider putting a cap on the depth of the cascade to stop things from getting specified to a rather silly level.

My inclination to would be to increase the cascade system and make sure that things don't go beyond roughly three levels.

I'd also try to keep a goal of having no skill be too useful or useless. The vehicle example is a good example of the system but the highest level Vehicle-1 seems almost too useful, giving you a better chance at driving a racing car, a tall ship, or a biplane.

Personally in Traveller I use the same kind of system as Supplement Four with broad skills and an implicit assumption of a skill tree by allowing players to use skills as an M-1 skill.

 

[Eyeball]

I personally like skill trees a lot and really enjoyed the realistic flavour of Paranoia. I used it extensively, never found it to be painful. I've enjoyed it in other rpgs and used it as the basis for a couple of my own rpgs.

The system you describe atpolard sounds very workable.

Although you could go down further and further specialisations, you might consider putting a cap on the depth of the cascade to stop things from getting specified to a rather silly level.

My inclination to would be to increase the cascade system and make sure that things don't go beyond roughly three levels.

I'd also try to keep a goal of having no skill be too useful or useless. The vehicle example is a good example of the system but the highest level Vehicle-1 seems almost too useful, giving you a better chance at driving a racing car, a tall ship, or a biplane.

Personally in Traveller I use the same kind of system as Supplement Four with broad skills and an implicit assumption of a skill tree by allowing players to use skills as an M-1 skill.