Attributes Impacting Skills?

[Tywyll]

Has anyone done anything to have attributes impact skills more (i.e. at all for stats beyond IQ)?

[Library Ogre]

Well, we talked about it a bit here.... with you...


As I mentioned in that thread, played with some other systems to allow that. https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/p ... onkey.html

A quote, from my Rule 3:

Rule 3: Attribute Bonuses to Skills
Those who are dextrous are going to be better at picking locks; those who are intelligent will be better at remembering lores. To reflect this, every time you test a skill, you add an appropriate attribute to your base percentage. If you are attempting to pick a pocket, you add your P.P. of 15 to your base of 60%, meaning you succeed on a roll of 01-75%. If you were trying to figure out what someone has in his pocket, however, you would add your I.Q. of 10, meaning you could figure it out on a 01-70%. In this variant, an exceptional I.Q. does not add a bonus to all skills. The benefit of having a high I.Q. is the wide range of skill checks which it affects; most Lores, diagnosing problems, and most Perception checks.

This provides for concrete differences between attributes; a person with a P.P. of 15 is almost twice as graceful as someone with a P.P. of 8, but normally gains no benefit over him. Under this system, he has a +7% bonus over his clumsy compadre. It also provides for an easy method of defaulting for skills everyone should have; attempting to prowl when you don't have the prowl skill can default to P.P.; trying to swim when you don't have the skill would default to P.S.. These are low numbers, but it emphasizes the importance of training. Alternatively, defaulting can use rule 5, below. It is important to note that the attributes are not added permanently, and if you are using rule 7 (Skill Synergies), only the skill itself is considered, not the attribute again.

The Palladium Skill system is VERY basic; without tweaking, it's pass/fail, often does not acknowledge difficulty (most skills have few guidelines on difficulties), and doesn't deal well with opposed rolls. It's also missing a lot of what I would consider key skills for a game that wants to be skill-based.

[dreicunan]

Well, we talked about it a bit here.... with you...


As I mentioned in that thread, played with some other systems to allow that. https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/p ... onkey.html

A quote, from my Rule 3:

Rule 3: Attribute Bonuses to Skills
Those who are dextrous are going to be better at picking locks; those who are intelligent will be better at remembering lores. To reflect this, every time you test a skill, you add an appropriate attribute to your base percentage. If you are attempting to pick a pocket, you add your P.P. of 15 to your base of 60%, meaning you succeed on a roll of 01-75%. If you were trying to figure out what someone has in his pocket, however, you would add your I.Q. of 10, meaning you could figure it out on a 01-70%. In this variant, an exceptional I.Q. does not add a bonus to all skills. The benefit of having a high I.Q. is the wide range of skill checks which it affects; most Lores, diagnosing problems, and most Perception checks.

This provides for concrete differences between attributes; a person with a P.P. of 15 is almost twice as graceful as someone with a P.P. of 8, but normally gains no benefit over him. Under this system, he has a +7% bonus over his clumsy compadre. It also provides for an easy method of defaulting for skills everyone should have; attempting to prowl when you don't have the prowl skill can default to P.P.; trying to swim when you don't have the skill would default to P.S.. These are low numbers, but it emphasizes the importance of training. Alternatively, defaulting can use rule 5, below. It is important to note that the attributes are not added permanently, and if you are using rule 7 (Skill Synergies), only the skill itself is considered, not the attribute again.

The Palladium Skill system is VERY basic; without tweaking, it's pass/fail, often does not acknowledge difficulty (most skills have few guidelines on difficulties), and doesn't deal well with opposed rolls. It's also missing a lot of what I would consider key skills for a game that wants to be skill-based.

Now that is not something that I hear too often: Palladium doesn't have enough skills! I'm curious, what do you think is missing?

[Library Ogre]

The Palladium Skill system is VERY basic; without tweaking, it's pass/fail, often does not acknowledge difficulty (most skills have few guidelines on difficulties), and doesn't deal well with opposed rolls. It's also missing a lot of what I would consider key skills for a game that wants to be skill-based.

Now that is not something that I hear too often: Palladium doesn't have enough skills! I'm curious, what do you think is missing?

Basically, Palladium is an older game, with an older game's assumptions. As such, it has a lot of very specific skills, but it lacks a lot of things that more modern players consider necessary... namely, mechanical support for role-playing actions.

Now, I've talked about this before... the reason you have social skills is to provide a mechanical framework for role-playing actions. The "Old School" response is "You should just act it out" but, well, some people are lousy at that. Mechanics can let them play the character, and take reactions out of the realm of a DMs feelings for the player. I intimidate him... what happens? How does intimidation affect someone? How do they resist it? If I am charming, what does that mean? IMO, these things should be defined. Currently, they exist at notations for exceptional attributes, with no way to build proficiency with them, or any guidelines for what they do.

They also have a number of skills that are TOO specific. Gymnastics AND Acrobatics (AND Tumbling), which work out to being three different ways of doing about the same thing. Modern games will have Medical Doctor, Paramedic, and First Aid, but the three skills have no real interaction; being an MD or a Paramedic doesn't help you with First Aid. In some modern games, hovercraft are under one skill, and they might be a separate skill, depending on the whim or sourcebooks of your GM. As noted in another thread, there's not a ton of difference between the three major forms of hand to hand skills... Basic is slightly worse than Expert is slightly worse than Martial Arts, with Assassin being its own thing.

And, as I mentioned, there's not a lot of guidance (especially in early books) for adjusting the difficulty of skills... times when you should add bonuses or penalties, how long some things will take, etc. There's no degrees of success... roll under, you win. Roll over, you lose. What happens if I'm competing with someone else (say, prowl v. perception, which is ALSO not a skill)? Or if I'm in the Great British Bake-Off OF DOOM!!!!!!!? How do I show that MY Cooking skill is better than Trevor's? This is something a GM can make up, sure, but a system is hardly "megaversal" if you have make up large swaths of it.

And, again, what about actions that should be possible, but are defined by skills. I don't have the prowl skill... am I simply unable to effectively sneak around? Or is there a threshold of natural ability? What if I try to climb? What if I'm not skilled in Cooking and try to cook? Not skilled in Horsemanship and try to sit on a horse? How much do I know about magic and monsters just from growing up in a world where such things are real?

Combine this with a system that levels fairly slowly, BTB, and you have a bit of a slog.

[Tywyll]

Well, we talked about it a bit here.... with you...

I know, I was looking for more options, seeing if anyone else had similar ideas?

[Tywyll]

The Palladium Skill system is VERY basic; without tweaking, it's pass/fail, often does not acknowledge difficulty (most skills have few guidelines on difficulties), and doesn't deal well with opposed rolls. It's also missing a lot of what I would consider key skills for a game that wants to be skill-based.

Now that is not something that I hear too often: Palladium doesn't have enough skills! I'm curious, what do you think is missing?

Basically, Palladium is an older game, with an older game's assumptions. As such, it has a lot of very specific skills, but it lacks a lot of things that more modern players consider necessary... namely, mechanical support for role-playing actions.

Now, I've talked about this before... the reason you have social skills is to provide a mechanical framework for role-playing actions. The "Old School" response is "You should just act it out" but, well, some people are lousy at that. Mechanics can let them play the character, and take reactions out of the realm of a DMs feelings for the player. I intimidate him... what happens? How does intimidation affect someone? How do they resist it? If I am charming, what does that mean? IMO, these things should be defined. Currently, they exist at notations for exceptional attributes, with no way to build proficiency with them, or any guidelines for what they do.

They also have a number of skills that are TOO specific. Gymnastics AND Acrobatics (AND Tumbling), which work out to being three different ways of doing about the same thing. Modern games will have Medical Doctor, Paramedic, and First Aid, but the three skills have no real interaction; being an MD or a Paramedic doesn't help you with First Aid. In some modern games, hovercraft are under one skill, and they might be a separate skill, depending on the whim or sourcebooks of your GM. As noted in another thread, there's not a ton of difference between the three major forms of hand to hand skills... Basic is slightly worse than Expert is slightly worse than Martial Arts, with Assassin being its own thing.

And, as I mentioned, there's not a lot of guidance (especially in early books) for adjusting the difficulty of skills... times when you should add bonuses or penalties, how long some things will take, etc. There's no degrees of success... roll under, you win. Roll over, you lose. What happens if I'm competing with someone else (say, prowl v. perception, which is ALSO not a skill)? Or if I'm in the Great British Bake-Off OF DOOM!!!!!!!? How do I show that MY Cooking skill is better than Trevor's? This is something a GM can make up, sure, but a system is hardly "megaversal" if you have make up large swaths of it.

And, again, what about actions that should be possible, but are defined by skills. I don't have the prowl skill... am I simply unable to effectively sneak around? Or is there a threshold of natural ability? What if I try to climb? What if I'm not skilled in Cooking and try to cook? Not skilled in Horsemanship and try to sit on a horse? How much do I know about magic and monsters just from growing up in a world where such things are real?

Combine this with a system that levels fairly slowly, BTB, and you have a bit of a slog.

I 100% agree with all of this.

PB desperately needs a major update/overhaul. Of course, that won't happen as long as KS own it...sigh.