What's the point of Athletics-0?

[rancke]

Tonight I ran my first playtest of the introductory adventure I'm working on, and we came across something I couldn't explain. A couple of the PCs have Athletics (Co-ordination)-0, but there does not appear to be any difference between having Athletics at 0 and not having it at all. The rules state that "there is never an untrained penalty for not having the Athletics skill". But as far as I can spot, the only effect of having Athletics-0 is to negate the untrained skill penalty.

Is there any time when having Athletics-0 makes a difference to a die roll?

And BTW, first house rule: Sprinting 24+<effect> meters does not take 1-6 seconds, it takes 6 seconds (one combat round).


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

Off the top of my head, perhaps something based on this from the rules

Some actions will require the character to have a particular skill, but will still not require a roll

Also, for me it's a role playing game first and foremost so even a skill at level 0 vs unskilled can have an effect on how the player role plays the character.

Example
Character Joe with no athletics considering if they should jump from one rooftop to another decides not to try or is more likely to need encouragement than Character Jim with athletics-0, even it is the same chance for each.

Perhaps the GM decides that with athletics-0 skill, Character Jim has enough background to have some idea how difficult the task will be and discloses this to the player so that they can use the information in making their decision while Character Joe would not know and the player is not told how difficult the task will be.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Taking a closer look at the rules on athletics, you quoted perhaps too small a portion of the rules. Here is more of the rules

The Athletics skill effectively augments a character’s physical characteristics: there is never an untrained penalty for not having the Athletics skill, you just use your Strength, Dexterity or Endurance DM as normal. Likewise, where a situation might call for a Strength, Dexterity or
Endurance check you can always use the appropriate Athletics speciality to boost your roll.

I think it is fairly clear that the second sentence indicates that for Characteristic Checks you can use the athletics skill to augment the physical characteristic. If you don't have athletic skill, there is no penalty.

The first sentence seams to be saying on Skill Checks that have a characteristic DM that might be enhanced by athletics you can use it and there is no -3 penalty for unskilled athletics - just use the characteristic DM as normal. Here, yes, athletics 0 has no effect on the results.

So far from the sentences quoted we have only been discussing how the Athletics skill augments physical characteristic DMs.

It is unclear if this "never an untrained penalty" applies to Athletic Skill Checks.

For example, deciding the results of a athletic competition one might give someone unskilled a -3 DM.

As with much of the rules there is multiple possible interpretations and you can do whatever you wish but this is one possibility.

 

[McPerth]

More or less the same as Jack of All Trades 0?

EDIT: one of the changes among having Atlethics (or JOT) at 0 is when you roll some event that allows you to raise one level on any skill you have, as having it at level 0 allows you to raise it, while not having it does not allow you to.

 

[rancke]

Also, for me it's a role playing game first and foremost so even a skill at level 0 vs unskilled can have an effect on how the player role plays the character.

To me a roleplaying game involves both roleplaying and gaming (or roll-playing as I usually refer to it), the best result generally coming from a roughly even mix of the two. A skill resolution rule ought to have some impact on skill resolution. The roleplaying should either come from explicit roleplaying rules or from the players and referee. Not as a handwave to explain why a gaming rule doesn't have any gaming effect.


Hans

 

[rancke]

More or less the same as Jack of All Trades 0?

That's what I mean. No effect at all.

EDIT: one of the changes among having Atlethics (or JOT) at 0 is when you roll some event that allows you to raise one level on any skill you have, as having it at level 0 allows you to raise it, while not having it does not allow you to.

Yes, but that's something that's only relevant during character generation. Is there any reason why a player should write down "Athletics-0" on his character sheet? (Instead of, if you go with Cosmic's roleplaying suggestion, "Likes to play at athletics but is really no better than any couch potato with the same attributes").


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

Yes, but that's something that's only relevant during character generation. Is there any reason why a player should write down "Athletics-0" on his character sheet? (Instead of, if you go with Cosmic's roleplaying suggestion, "Likes to play at athletics but is really no better than any couch potato with the same attributes").

Why are you ignoring my other comments?

Some actions will require the character to have a particular skill, but will still not require a roll

While it may not require roll playing, it is still a rule which gives a clear reason for the Athletics-0 skill and makes them better than a couch potato with the same attributes.

and

deciding the results of a athletic competition one might give someone unskilled a -3 DM

If you decide to interpret it differently, that's up to you - but it is a valid breaking no rules use of athletics-0 vs unskilled.

 

[rancke]

Why are you ignoring my other comments?

Because I felt it was too rarely applicable to be useful. And because I know from personal experience that there's a huge difference between being just moderately fit and being not fit.

Now, if there was a rule that said that a character's endurance counted as lower than its full value unless you had at least Athletics-0. I could definitely get behind that!


Hans

 

[Ref00000]

you could, of course, incorporate a 'house rule' that did precisely that.
"If a PC does not have at least 'Athletics-0' Characteristic Checks are subject to the standard -3 Non-Proficiency Rule."
actually makes a good bit of sense, and more or less forces a Player to build a "more realistic" PC.

 

[CosmicGamer]

too rarely applicable

Talk about rarely applicable, the only time athletics-0 applies is if someone gets it during basic training and it doesn't get approved upon.

Because I felt it was too rarely applicable

So is this thread just you griping about a rule that doesn't fit your personal style of play? Because I'll bow out of the conversation if that's all this is about.

Or are you looking for help in creating some house rules to make things suit your concepts better?

there's a huge difference between being just moderately fit and being not fit.

Do being fit and athletics equate? To me, fit is best represented by your characteristics and Athletics would represent ones training and experience - skill.

People are all the time thinking I work out when mostly all I do is eat right and sit in front of a computer or on a couch. I participate in no sports and don't work out at all unless you consider walks (and other activities with the wife) a workout.

I consider myself fit (except for an old back injury that flares up) but not athletic.

If there is any complaint I have with the athletics rules it is that many of the examples are poor, to me, as something like sprinting is more of an example of straight characteristic check that could possibly use a athletics augmentation than a Athletics(coordination) skill check for something like grabbing a kids gravboard to get away from someone chasing you.

That was a back to the future reference for those who missed it.

 

[rancke]

Talk about rarely applicable, the only time athletics-0 applies is if someone gets it during basic training and it doesn't get approved upon.

I've been working on an introductory scenario and four out of the six player characters (plus several NPCs) that I had generated had Athletics-0.

So is this thread just you griping about a rule that doesn't fit your personal style of play? Because I'll bow out of the conversation if that's all this is about.

Or are you looking for help in creating some house rules to make things suit your concepts better?

Neither. I'm trying to get information on which to base a decision whether to change Athletics-0 skills for some other 0-level skills or not.

Do being fit and athletics equate?

It does according to the MgT rules. First line in the Athletics description: "The character is a trained athlete and is physically fit." [Core Rulebook, p. 52]


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

It does according to the MgT rules. First line in the Athletics description: "The character is a trained athlete and is physically fit." [Core Rulebook, p. 52]


Hans

No, it doesn't. It is clear that that sentence says "is a trained athlete AND is physically fit."

It does not say is a trained athlete AND THEREFORE is physically fit. The two are not equal positions. There are many trained athletes that are not physically fit.

Further, there are far more people that are not trained athletes that are physically fit.

The two positions are not equal. You don't have to be a trained athlete to be physically fit, nor do you have to be physically fit to be a trained athlete.

 

[whulorigan]

Archery

That's what I mean. No effect at all.

Yes, but that's something that's only relevant during character generation. Is there any reason why a player should write down "Athletics-0" on his character sheet?

FWIW, in MgT: Mercenary, p.37, Athletics includes the skill "Archery". So Athletics-0 would give everyone basic Archery-0.

Of course, I don't know how often non-Barbarians use Archery skill in a gaming session . . .

 

[rancke]

No, it doesn't. It is clear that that sentence says "is a trained athlete AND is physically fit."

It does not say is a trained athlete AND THEREFORE is physically fit.

That's how I read it, but it really doesn't make any practical difference.

The two are not equal positions. There are many trained athletes that are not physically fit.

Perhaps, but none who has the MgT Athlete-X skill. They are all both trained athletes and physically fit. I don't understand your point. It seems to me to be a quibble.

Further, there are far more people that are not trained athletes that are physically fit.

Sure, no argument there. I would ask you to provide examples of trained athletes who are not physically fit, but I won't bother because it's a moot point; the MgT rules says that if you have the athlete skill, you are physically fit (as well as a trained athlete).

The two positions are not equal. You don't have to be a trained athlete to be physically fit, nor do you have to be physically fit to be a trained athlete.

Except that under the MgT rules you will be both if you have the Athlete skill at any level.


Hans

 

[SanDragon]

That was a back to the future reference for those who missed it.

I got it. Avoid significant bodies of water.

 

[pendragonman]

Sure, no argument there. I would ask you to provide examples of trained athletes who are not physically fit, but I won't bother because it's a moot point; the MgT rules says that if you have the athlete skill, you are physically fit (as well as a trained athlete).


Except that under the MgT rules you will be both if you have the Athlete skill at any level.


Hans

Which is WHY you want Athletics 0.

Now, as to trained athletes that are out of shape. Any athlete that comes into annual training camp way overweight is not physically fit.

 

[Shonner]

What's the point of Athletics 0?

The difference between being an athlete or a spectator.

 

[rancke]

The difference between being an athlete or a spectator.

Another time you may want to read at least the first post in a thread.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

Off the top of my head, perhaps something based on this from the rules

Some actions will require the character to have a particular skill, but will still not require a roll

Also, for me it's a role playing game first and foremost so even a skill at level 0 vs unskilled can have an effect on how the player role plays the character.

Example
Character Joe with no athletics considering if they should jump from one rooftop to another decides not to try or is more likely to need encouragement than Character Jim with athletics-0, even it is the same chance for each.

Perhaps the GM decides that with athletics-0 skill, Character Jim has enough background to have some idea how difficult the task will be and discloses this to the player so that they can use the information in making their decision while Character Joe would not know and the player is not told how difficult the task will be.

To me a roleplaying game involves both roleplaying and gaming (or roll-playing as I usually refer to it), the best result generally coming from a roughly even mix of the two. A skill resolution rule ought to have some impact on skill resolution. The roleplaying should either come from explicit roleplaying rules or from the players and referee. Not as a handwave to explain why a gameing rule doesn't have any gaming effect.

Yes, I guess CosmicGamer's reasoning is the best use for Athletics 0 in play (after CharGen has ended). See that the game example in pages 3-4 of the CB (just on the change of page) gives exactly such example of a 0 level skill avoiding having to roll.

Then, If you game style requires rolls even in those circumpstances where the rules say it's not required, 0 level skills lose part of their meaning, of course, and some adaptation must be done to give them some sense. The rules are written to be coherent, if you house rules something, it might have side effects.

Please, understand that's not intended as a ctiticism to your gamisg style (after all, as long as you and your players enjoy it, it's fine), just pointing that Athletics 0 has some sense on RAW, the problema you tell here is just a side effect of your house ruling.

While I understand the "no untrained modifiers" rule on athletic skill, as everybody can run, lift some whight, etc.. (I'd even apply also to other skills, Carouse coming to my mind, as everybody also has had social contact with others), maybe for some actions there should be those modifiers (the strategy for a race, evaluating an athlete fitness, etc...), so it would have some sense having it at level 0...

In the case of JOT-0, it has no meaning even in RAW, though...

 

[rancke]

Yes, I guess CosmicGamer's reasoning is the best use for Athletics 0 in play (after CharGen has ended). See that the game example in pages 3-4 of the CB (just on the change of page) gives exactly such example of a 0 level skill avoiding having to roll.

I don't quite see that. Without Zero-G-0, Tom would have had a -2 on all his activities in zero G (and -3 to his Zero-G checks), so as far as I can see, it's a good deal more than 'technically'. Without Athlete-0, OTOH, a character has no different chances than with it, so that would, indeed, be 'technically'.

I take your point about auto-successes, though. The difference between having to make a skill check and not having to make one is certainly something that has a gaming effect.

Then, If you game style requires rolls even in those circumpstances where the rules say it's not required, 0 level skills lose part of their meaning, of course, and some adaptation must be done to give them some sense. The rules ae written to be coherent, if you house rules something, it might have side effects.

It's not really my game style that's the issue. I'm writing an introductory scenario. That means that I now have to decide whether to spend wordage to explain to the prospective newbie referee what the difference between no Athlete skill and Athlete-0 skill is or to change the Athlete-0 skills of my PCs and NPCs to something else. I would welcome further input on that.

I have to say that at first blush the difference you point out is somewhat obscure, if that's the word I want. I wonder if it's worth spending newbie attention span on? Perhaps if you could come up with a couple of good examples of situations where it would make a difference?

Please, understand that's not intended as a ctiticism to your gaming style (after all, as long as you and your players enjoy it, it's fine), just pointing that Athletics 0 has some sense on RAW, the problema you tell here is just a side effect of your house ruling.

The problem I had was to explain to a couple of my test players what Athlete-0 was good for. I asked for help. I'm grateful for the helpful comments I got (this includes yours).


Hans