Revised Skill List

[TrippyHippy]

Here's my proposed revised skill list, utilising clusters, and trying to standardise language wherever possible (with abbreviations in brackets).

Skills are listed in bold, including seperate skills within clusters (as opposed to specialities). Those that are just Skill Cluster headings, rather than actual skills are underlined instead. In most cases, I think that broad skills (with listed specialities) should be capped at Level 0 anyway, so it's not neceassarily a major issue.

Note that Trade/Engineering is now combined, and differentiated from the Science and Starship Operations skills, respectively. There is also a composite Technology clusterl, for all the various technological abilities, as well as a Combat cluster (albeit with seperate skills).

My issues with the Science skill is mainly semantic: I'd like the Psychology speciality to be defined as "the study of mind and behaviour", for example, and there are a few additions/ammendums, inlcuding a seperate Neurology speciality in the Life Sciences. I'd keep a seperate Space Science entree, including Cosmology, Planetology, and Astro-Physics (mainly for stars/black holes). Xenology is a difficult one, but surely it must be a Life science too. Then again, this amounts to the question of what Xenology actually means (i.e is it a cultural or biological study?). I'm not convinced by Philosophy as a science either, but otherwise, I'd be happy with this list:

Skill List

Administration (Admin)
Advocate
Animal Care (Animal):
- Farming
- Riding
- Training
- Veterinary
Athletics:
- Co-ordination: Climbing, Juggling, Throwing, Swimming
- Endurance: Long-distance running, hiking, long distance swimming.
- Strength: Feats of strength, weight-lifting.
Art:
- Acting
- Dance
- Music/Instument
- Sculpting
- Writing
Astrogation
Broker
Carouse

Combat:
- Explosives
- Firearms - Slug Pistol, Slug Rifle, Energy Pistol, Energy Rifle
- Spaceship - Ortillary, Screens, Spinal Weapons, Turrets
- Heavy Weapons: Launchers, Man-Portable Artillary, Field Artillery
- Personal: Brawling, Martial Arts, Blade, Bludgeon, Natural Weapons
- Tactics: Military, Naval

Deception
Diplomacy
Gambling
Investigation
Jack of All Trades
Language - various language specialities
Leadership
Mechanical Repair (Mechanic)
Medical Care (Medic)
Navigation
Persuasion

Pilot:
- Air Craft: Grav, Rotar, Wing
- Space Craft: Small Craft, Trade Ships, Capital Ships
- Water Craft: Sail, Submarine, Ocean
- Ground Craft: Mole, Tracked, Wheeled

Reconnaissance (Recon)

Science:
- Physical Sciences - Physics, Chemistry, Electronics,
- Life Sciences - Biology, Cybernetics, Genetics, Neurology, Psionicology, Xenology
- Social Sciences - Archeology, Economics, History, Linguistics, Philosophy, Psychology, Sophontology
- Space Sciences - Cosmology, Planetology, Astro-Physics

Starship Operations Engineering (SOE) :
- M-Drive
- J-Drive
- Electronics
- Life Support
- Power
Stealth
Steward
Steetwise
Survival:
- Arid
- Cold
- Jungle
- Underwater
- Zero-G

Technology:
- Battle Dress
- Communications
- Computers
- Remote Operations
- Robotics
- Sensors
- Vaccum suit

Trade/Engineering:
- Biologicals
- Construction
- Hydroponics
- Programming
- Polymers

 

[SableWyvern]

That pretty much works for me.

I don't like the use of the term "cluster" to represent both related skills with no mechanical relationship, and skills with specialisations. It's unclear and unnecessarily confusing.

I wouldn't mind seeing Tactics changed to Military Theory, and adding in Strategy (and maybe Logistics) as further specialisations, but that's probably an unnecessary level of detail for most people.

Also, Arid and Cold are not mutually exclusive, and plenty of outer planets will meet the definitions of both. Hot is probably a more accurate term for what Arid seems to represent in that list.

 

[AKAramis]

Philosophy, as a social science, is the study of intellectual procedures, including logic, semantics, and ways of knowing.

I'd add planetary sciences... and delete planetology, replacing it with basic astrometrics, and add geography to social. Geography, at least under the terminology used by the accrediting agency, is the study of the itneractions of people and the environment.


Science:
- Physical Sciences - Physics, Chemistry, Electronics,
- Life Sciences - Biology, Cybernetics, Genetics, Neurology, Psionicology, Xenology
- Social Sciences - Archeology, Economics, Geography, History, Linguistics, Philosophy, Psychology, Sophontology
- Space Sciences - Cosmology, Astro-Physics, Astrometrics
- Planetary Sciences - Geology, Hydrology, Meteorology, Vulcanology.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Um, aren't we stepping backwards here?

I thought the list was more or less there apart from a handful of mainly semantic concerns about the definitions of science, engineering, and trades.

Now everything got all complicated again. There's no point having nice, wide, general skills if we go and specificate an arbitary number of them again.

What, in game terms, is the difference between astrophysics and cosmology? Do we really need to describe those differences in the mechanics of an rpg? Similarly, how as a ref can you argue to a player that their Eng: Power Plant has no benefit when it comes to getting the derelict fusion power station working?

None of these new terms add any clarity to proceedings; in fact they considerably lessen it. So we have Starship Operations, that contain no helmsman skills. Or conflating Trades with Engineering. That's not very helpful. Maybe all the examples shown so far of Trades do have roots in engineering I don't think the skills were meant to be synonymous. Trades could include things like selling furniture or laying carpets; at least, that is my impression of what the skill is actually for.

The skill list just needs a few tweaks and rationalisations, not a root and branch reform so close to finalisation. Especially when it only affects specific areas. I know as a trained artist I could argue with justification for an overhaul of the Art skill, but I won't as it's close enough to not matter. Those with military experience could argue for grainier fighting skills, but what we have works quite well.

I think for science skills we should be looking for the widest definitions possible; not trying to model all the different specialisms or what university departments there are.

So Astrophysics does for cosmology and astronomy too. Xeno-biology does for botany, zoology and microbiology. Sophontology does for psychology and philosophy too. etc etc.

There's some justification for grainier skills, such as Genetics (because of it's relations to medical) and Linguistics, but most should be as wide as possible.

Remember, this is about making a game that is fun to play, not trying to model accurately the various arbitrary ways learning and knowledge is organised. Too-specialised science skills won't be used very often - not much fun for the player to have more or less useless skills, and will discourage players from choosing scientists.

Considering MGT has less skills than most sfrpgs, it already has more science subskills than most I've seen. While science is obviously crucial in an sfrpg, surely we can afford to be less precious about it?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Actually, I was conflating Trade with Engineering because the original list of examples provided could actually be seen as different types of engineering. They even define the skill in terms of engineering.

The current 'Engineering' skill, however, actually defines itself purely in starship operations terms. This means, in effect, that Engineers in the game are starship operators only by default. That's too specific for my tastes, but in reality this is all still an issue of semantics and definition.

If the re-worded the Engineering skill could be used on a broader basis, then fine, but currently the Starship Operations aspect has a key role in the gameplay, and can't really be watered down easily. It is a flaw in the system as it stands. (Pilot: Starships is the 'helmsman' skill of course, btw).

You could argue that Cosmology and Astro-Physics are too similar, although I tend to see cosmology as more of a 'big picture' science. But then, I'm not too fussed either way, to be honest. I'd be happy to have just one, and be done with it. I'm not trying to pile up the number of science specialities either, btw, I'm just working with the ideas presented already.

Beyond that, and as far as I'm aware, I haven't done any "root and branch" rearrangement. I've merely tweaked it as you say, only adding a minimal number of specialisations to deal with certain things not covered (there isn't either Cosmology or Astro-Physics in V3.1 as it is, for example). Go look at the original again - I think you'll find it's not that different for the most part, just less formatted and with a less consistant use of language, I hope. If I wanted to get more radical, then I would have removed a load of skills, but I'm trying to do it with the least hassle.

I do not agree that the skill system is satisfactory, currently, which is why I am arguing for a change now. I'd rather do that now than after the game is released. If the skill system came out as it is now, with the dodgy definitions/titles of certain skills, with the issues that have been pulled up in my playtests about Engineering and Science, and without any consideration of formatting, I'd be pretty irritated by it, quite frankly. The skill set aren't all 'nice and broad' as they stand. Some are very specific to setting, and not very broad in application. I say this, most noteably, about the engineering and technology skills.

I mean, seriously, how can anybody find the skill moniker 'Flyer' to be clear or satisfactory? Does it mean you can fly like a bird?! No. It means 'Pilot Aircraft' , so why not actually call it that! :roll:

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I don't think I've ever had the impression that the engineering and trades specialisms are the complete, final lists.

I've been assuming the intention has been to fill out Eng and Trad specs, but obviously starship ops skills would be included first. If I'm wrong about that then so be it.

Actually, if Sci, Art, Eng, and Trad are going to be handled in much the same way Knowledge, Profession, and Technology are handled in T20, ie: self scaleable, then this isn't really much of a problem.

I would have preferred 6 to 12 specialisms that covered all areas, but that's going to please some and p--s off others, with nary a safe compromise. As long as what the skills actually do is different..

ie:

Engineering is about operating, modifying, and repairing technological equipment.
Science is about the systematic gathering of knowledge and using that knowledge to research new and better understandings of the universe around us.
And Trades is about producing something or performing a service to earn cash.

Flyer doesn't bother me. It's a perfectly good moniker for someone who flies, and the term has a long honourable history in sci fi to describe futuristic flying machines. Aircraft, after all, implies an atmosphere to fly in...

I would have preferred to see all vehicles skills in a Vehicle skill (after all, how many pilots can't drive?) but that's an editorial decision and in the long run doesn't matter so much.

As it is the skills list is there as far as the chargen tables are concerned. All the controversy is about naming the subskills - everyone's going to houserule that anyway and mechanically is irrelevant.

Seriously, if we keep adding in loads of scientific specialisms it will be very hard to roll up a fully rounded working scientist using the current system.

I wasn't accusing anyone of having done a root & branch reform! Just that that's where this thread was/is heading. I think it's late in the day to suggest such a radical rejigging of the skills list concepts.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd say in order of priority, for me:

1) The Engineering skill needs to be sorted out. Either by rewriting the definition, and broadening it out, or changing the name of the skill. Currently, the Engineering skill refers specifically to Starship operations, while all other types of Engineering are listed under the Craft skill. This is confusing.

2) Tidy up the consistency in the language, for pete's sake! Several skills vary in the the tenses, and again this looks amateur. I'm tired of asking again and again for this, as it only takes a moment to change 'Investigate' to 'Investigation', and so on. Decide on a tense to use for all skills, and stick with it!

3) The monikers given for the various Pilot skills are poor descriptors and look amateurish, again. A 'Flyer' is defined as 'only work in the air' as opposed to vehicles that work where there isn't an atmoshpere (Spaceships). In other words it's a 'Pilot Aircraft' skill by definition. Moreover everybody refers to people who pilot aircraft as 'pilots', not 'flyers! A 'flyer' to me means somebody in a jet-pack or a glider.
'Seafarer' again defines itself specifically to watercraft. Say: Pilot Aircraft, or Pilot Starcraft, or Pilot Watercraft, respectively. I suppose you could retain Drive as being seperate for Groundcraft, because it's suitably generic too, however.

4) I'm less fussed with Science skill currently as it has now at least been broken down into seperate sciences, and the specialisations are easy to add to. However, definitions still could be checked for certain types - I've picked on Psychology because it categorically is not 'the study of thoughts and society': it's the study of the mind and behaviour. I would like a straight biological equivalent discipline of Neurology though (for my own sci-fi preferences). They also clearly missed out a Cosmology type skill, while Robotics is better utilised as a Technology skill, rather than a 'Space Science' I think.

5) Too many of the various technology skills are too specific for a generic setting, I feel. Moreover, I feel that there should be some sort of basic transfer of Technology skill from, say, Communications devices to Remote Operations. Likewise, I feel that, as another example, Zero-G is basically a Survival speciality, which would be just as valid as specialisations in Deserts, Arctic or Underwater conditions.

Anyway, I'll send a final report in tomorrow, just before Xmas gets into full gear. So if you want to debate this with me, by all means do so as an informal playtest of a sort.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Actually we're in broad agreement.

1) Yes. Keep it broad - apply it further than starship ops, include all the specs that handle technology - robotics, electronics, etc.

2) Well it still is just a draft but yes, being consistent in language is important. So Diplomacy over Diplomat, Athletics over Athlete, etc etc.

3) A tricky one this as piloting a scoutship, a helicopter, and a boat are very, very different things. There is further confusion as in exactly what way is an air/raft different from a spaceship in terms of the skills that are used. The description shouldn't limit itself to just air, though, tho I'm sure this is just an oversight. Pilot in Traveller traditionally refers to space piloting, and I see no reason to change it for MGT. Most piloting, after all, will be in space. It should be differentiated with flying a chopper or a grav sled NOE. Flyer covers this without getting into other sticky areas.

4) I'm quite happy with the Sciences too, as long as we lose Electronics and Robotics and make them Engineering. I'm not sure we need the distinction between Physical Sciences and Space Sciences - would a space-faring culture make that distinction? We do because space is "out there" and it's a fairly recent set of sciences, comparatively, but would the 3I?

5) I would say Zero-G is very different to Survival. It's about motor control, not about knowing which plant to eat or how long you can be stuck in a freezing wind before suffering fatally. The way it's iterated is that it's about physical confidence rather than expertise.
I would say there is a case for rolling up Sensors and Commo into a single skill (Signals or Sensor/Comms), as arguably they are doing quite similar things with similar bit of kit (what's the difference between comms jamming and sensor jamming?).
Making a case for a category of skills called Operations (Ops) is quite worthwhile. It would include such skills as Computer, Sensors, Comms, and even Astrogation and Gunnery. However, it is a little bit like creating a skill taxonomy for the sake of it.
I like Remote Operations as a skill even if it is a little lonely, though I'd prefer the term Telepresence, as it sounds cooler.

I'm going to be away from broadband for a few days so hopefully we can pick it up later in the week.

Merry Xmas anyhoo peeps!

 

[SableWyvern]

I agree with Klaus that space/starcraft piloting should be a completely different skill and name to conventional flying/driving/sailing. In the real world, virtually all pilots can drive because virtually eveyone in a position to get a pilots licence will have access to a car and use one ... just like virtually every qualified doctor. In a setting were some people may have never seen a ground car, but pilot an air/raft daily, the skills need to be separate.

I'm also agreed with Klaus on Zero G. There may be room for a vacuum survival skill (how to survive decompression, manage exposure to radiation and extremes of temperature etc...), but this is probably part and parcel of Vac Suit skill (in reality, Vac Suit is probably a sub-set of Zero G survival, but it's the Vac Suit part that is likely to come up most frequently in-game). As Klaus points out, the current Zero G skill is less about survival and more about maintaining effectiveness -- how to deal with recoil, best manouevre from point to point, avoid collisions, understand momentum etc...

Edit: Oh, and I think Remote Operations sounds better than Telepresence. Despite the fact that term remote operations sounds a lot like remote viewing, it's telepresence that makes me think of psychic rather than technical knowledge.

 

[TrippyHippy]

OK. Let's stick with the five point format:

1) Fine. If it happens.
2) Language is absolutely important, for the sake of clarity and for creating a professional feel.
3) You'll note that I am still keeping seperate skills - just changing their monikers to sound more consistent again. Pilot: Spacecraft, Pilot: Aircraft and Pilot: Watercraft craft would all still be seperate skills. 'Flyer' and 'Seafarer' sound amateurish.
4) Electronics is actually a broad physical science discipline in it's own right, and not necessarily about just being able to wire a plug - it's broader than that. You could have a similar entree in Physical Sciences for Quantum physics too though. I definitely think that Robotics is an application though. The Space Science category could be made, but I'd try to combine it with Earth Sciences to be able to include Geology/Planetology etc. Alternatively, just replace it with Earth Sciences totally, and plonk Astro-Physics in the Physical sciences instead. We could spend a long time discussing this.....
5) In the context of the genre there is a case for having a seperate Zero-G skill, but currently I just feel there are too many seperate narrow skills in the game, particularly in technology use. Remote operations and Sensors definitely sound like Technology specialistations to me! Some of your solutions are interesting though.

 

[SableWyvern]

5) In the context of the genre there is a case for having a seperate Zero-G skill, but currently I just feel there are too many seperate narrow skills in the game, particularly in technology use. Remote operations and Sensors definitely sound like Technology specialistations to me! Some of your solutions are interesting though.

This is something of a tricky one.

Sensors and Comms are, IMO, very discrete skills. Setting up a seismic ground sensor or a battlefield radar are very different tasks to siting a 30' HF antenna or choosing locations for radio relay stations. And, while those first two are themselves quite distinct tasks, it would not be unusual for them to be taught together.

That said, both skills involve a lot of basic tasks that require very little training. Throw someone with no experience a radio already on an established net, and they'll have little difficulty talking and getting a response, although their radio etiquette and security will be poor, and they may not be able to follow the jargon. Similarly, many sensor systems will be simple to use and interpret once they are installed.

If we take a look at the skill tables, we see that comms isn't a service skill for the Army, Navy or Marines. This leads to the conclusion that basic radio-telephone procedure is not what the Comms skill covers, and basic comms skills are either assumed across the board, or at least for characters with appropriate background (Military and Spacers). The comms skill would then cover the more technical aspects of establishing and coordinating large radio nets, radio-related EW, dealing with atmospheric (or stellar) interference, knowing when atmospheric conditions are suitable for bouncing your transmissions further, improvising an antenna etc...

Viewed in this light, comms as a relatively narrow skill works, because you don't need it just to communicate in everyday situations (despite what the rules say in some instances), but it does allow characters with the skill to perform a range of potentially very useful tasks.

Sensors, IMO, works similarly. More often then not, using an established sensor system for routine tasks requires little or no skill. Sensor skill simply allows you to draw further details from the information provided, identify anomolous readings, establish sensor systems and conduct broad-spectrum EW warfare.

Remote Operations I don't have a problem with as it stands. While I think it probably has limited utility, I can guarantee that if there is a PC in my group that has it, their ship is going to be remotely piloted at some point, and it will probably have a significant effect on play when that happens.