Forums of the Megaverse®

Something I posted on my Rifts blog and also through the various Facebook groups. That said, I know not everyone does the Facebook thing.

So, let’s talk about revitalizing Rifts (and PB is general). The core rules, which have nuanced variations in each system, haven’t seen a full-sweeping update in a while. In a series of posts on my blog, and likely replicated here, I’ll be demonstrating some changes that I would recommend to PB in order to tighten up their rules while remaining backward compatible. The first I look at tackles the 300+ entry elephant in the room, the Skills list and how they are used.

Highlights include:

- Bringing total skills from 300+ to 100, less is modern settings, less still in Fantasy.

- Adding options for Specialization and Tradecraft Professional; each time chosen boosts the Baseline percentage of the skill by +10% (e.g. select Cook twice becomes semi-professional, select three times to become a professional chef)

- Removal of Cowboy and Horsemanship as Categories (yes, this is a thing); skills under each are either moved or wrapped up somewhere else

- Specifying skills that synergize, giving small benefits to each other when selected (+5% bonus)

- Those marked as secondary skills can be rolled even without the skill (most times with penalty); selecting Secondary skills allows them to grow as
character advances

- All skills in same category start at the same Base level (e.g. all Science starts at 25%) less Secondary Skills, which start at 40%

- All skills advance at +5% per level

- Skill Challenges: What skill directly challenges another skill, and what Skill Challenges look like

https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... ills-redux

In a request for feedback, what do you think? What house rules do you use for Skills to make them less ungainly/more relevant? What would you suggest to PB?

Cheers.

desrocfc wrote:Something I posted on my Rifts blog and also through the various Facebook groups. That said, I know not everyone does the Facebook thing.

Glad you did. I avoid Facebook like the plague-ridden toxic dump of human inadequacy that it is so always happy when something decent migrates over.

desrocfc wrote:So, let’s talk about revitalizing Rifts (and PB is general). The core rules, which have nuanced variations in each system, haven’t seen a full-sweeping update in a while. In a series of posts on my blog, and likely replicated here, I’ll be demonstrating some changes that I would recommend to PB in order to tighten up their rules while remaining backward compatible. The first I look at tackles the 300+ entry elephant in the room, the Skills list and how they are used.

Highlights include:

- Bringing total skills from 300+ to 100, less is modern settings, less still in Fantasy.

I knew this was going to be a big part of this. Seems like every 6 months or so we get a post about how to reduce the skill list. Now I am all for eliminating or combing things that are repetitive, OCC's are the best example (does the CS really need 300 quadrillion special forces OCCs?) but I am completely opposed to any changes that eliminate player choices or make PCs more cookie cutter.

When looking at this I just have to ask do you want to reduce the number of energy weapons, power armors, magic spells, psionics, and superpowers as well. All of which take just as long, if not longer, in character creation than skills.

Now to be clear I am biased because I have always added tons of skills, mostly Lore and history, to my games and I have never really had a problem with the number of skills. Also, you have a lot of arbitrary rules here and as a former teacher I can't tell you how much I hate rules that serve no purpose but to make everything look the same. No, my 9th grade geography class is not organized the same as my 12th grade Advanced Placement U.S. Government class and for a lot of very good reasons, but I constantly had people telling me they should be. A lot of your rules gave me flashbacks to those meetings.

desrocfc wrote:- Adding options for Specialization and Tradecraft Professional; each time chosen boosts the Baseline percentage of the skill by +10% (e.g. select Cook twice becomes semi-professional, select three times to become a professional chef)

This is usually covered by the difference between secondary and scholastic skills. Also, looking at your examples in the blog posts it seems like a lot of skills aren't so much eliminated as they are smooshed together.

The worst example I saw was Intelligence. You seem, and if I misunderstood I apologize, to combine Intelligence (a skill centered around analyzing evidence) and combine it with detect concealment, detect ambush and oddly enough street wise. This is something I would oppose completely as a spy and a city rat should have different skills.

desrocfc wrote:- Removal of Cowboy and Horsemanship as Categories (yes, this is a thing); skills under each are either moved or wrapped up somewhere else

Why? I understand on a certain level why someone would want to reduce the number of skills but what is the purpose of shoving completely unrelated skills into the same category. We already have this with communications and technical categories. Even if you reduce the number of skills having more categories makes sense unless you can give a good reason why someone would get the same bonus for singing that they do to Radio Basic or the same bonus for computer programing that they do for Law.

Is there a practical benefit to reducing the number of categories besides there just being fewer.

desrocfc wrote:- Specifying skills that synergize, giving small benefits to each other when selected (+5% bonus)

Having this stated clearly for each skill would be nice, I would add that it does not have to be reciprocal. Just because skill A gives a bonus to B doesn't mean B will give a bonus to A.

desrocfc wrote:- Those marked as secondary skills can be rolled even without the skill (most times with penalty); selecting Secondary skills allows them to grow as character advances

This is an interesting idea and I already added it to my list of possible house rules. Doubt I will use it anytime soon. though.

That said the penalties would have to be steep and different from one skill to the next. Trying to ride a bike without the skill is a lot different than driving a car, but both are secondary skills.

desrocfc wrote:- All skills in same category start at the same Base level (e.g. all Science starts at 25%) less Secondary Skills, which start at 40%

Again, why? Is it really such a burden to have to look at the starting percentage? Going back to a previous problem I had the starting competence with a skill like Computer Programming is a lot more difficult than a skill like Begging.

Also, there are skills that you want to have a higher starting percentage for just game reasons, like Demolitions Disposal so that a first level character has a shot at not dying.

desrocfc wrote:- All skills advance at +5% per level

This just seems like another arbitrary rule that serves no game mechanic purpose just an ascetic one.

Going back to Demolitions Disposal there is a very good game reason for it to start high. Players aren't going to try to use the skill if it is more likely than not that they will die. If it starts high than for game balance you want it to advance more slowly.

desrocfc wrote:- Skill Challenges: What skill directly challenges another skill, and what Skill Challenges look like

https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... ills-redux

I don't necessarily have a problem with this as long as there is some flexibility depending on circumstances.

desrocfc wrote:In a request for feedback, what do you think? What house rules do you use for Skills to make them less ungainly/more relevant? What would you suggest to PB?

Cheers.

I hope some of this helps you. Again I really like the idea of a more unified system across all PB games but the number of skills is just not an issue for me.

As for my rules I have never had a problem with the skills themselves. Like weapons, spells, player races, psionics, etc., etc. it is just one more thing that adds some variety to the game.

My biggest thing, and it is not totally original just a modification, is what I call skill combat. Two opposing PC's or NPC's roll opposing skills, the winner is the one that rolled the most under their skill.

Player A has a skill of 98% and rolls an 88%, so he has a skill value of 10%
Player B has a skill of 40% but he rolls a 10%, giving him a skill value of 30%. Player B wins.

This can also be used to apply a penalty for a skill
An NPC rolls Demolitions skill to plant a bomb, gets a skill value of 21%
If a PC wants to disarm that bomb they start off with a penalty of 21% and it goes from there.

Thanks Francois for an well reasoned and insightful blog post. How skills are presented and used to generate characters has a large impact on the flavour of the characters and gameplay. Having a consistent universal system would make a lot of sense, even if players use only one of the non-Rifts line of books and are unconcerned with rifting to other worlds. Hopefully PB thinks carefully about some of your ideas if they update their game books.

A key point you raise in your blog is cleaning up the text that describes a skill, modifiers, etc. and how they are organized. Warshield73 brings up some very valid feedback that I agree with. In particular:
- %s shouldn't be standardized because skills are inherently learned at different rates. Also, it adds tension when a player is picking skills (Start with a skill that packs a punch at level 1 but progresses slowly or a different skill that takes time to become effective? How does this impact the character has within their team dynamic?)
- be careful about comparing skills before getting buy-in on how skills relate, as this may change how a skill is interpreted for other players/GMs

However, the points I'd challenge the most is reducing the number of skills and removing skill categories.

SKILLS

My vote is for more skills for more choice. The body of knowledge is vast and the RAW skills are a mere slice that requires players and GMs to sometimes fudge their applicability just to make things work in the absence of an alternative. More skills would help reduce that fudging.

You approach this in part by introducing specializations to reflect increased complexity and I think you are on the right path. For example, there are basic electronics and basic mechanics skills which are foundational catchalls for their respective categories, and existing or new specializations could build on these. However, I would suggest that this idea be pushed further - that there should be a foundational catch-all for each category (except Technical and WP since those categories are nothing but specializations) that offers basic theoretical knowledge without specialization or specific application. The rest of the skills could build on this foundation. However, to keep things in line with how skills are selected by an OCC, I'd suggest leaving specializations as separate skills that require the foundation as a prerequisite - no need to add a new game mechanic just to distinguish between the concept of a 'skill' and 'specialization'. I acknowledge that OCCs have only a limited number of skill slots to fill and shouldn't waste slots on a range of 'basic' foundation skills, but we could rely on the rule that if an OCC has a prescribed skill (in this case a specialization such as electricity generation) but not the prerequisite, they automatically get the prerequisite.

Note also to be careful about selecting what is the foundational basic skill - a character could very well know how to set up a windmill generator or connect solar panels to a battery to power a cabin without being versed in the full spectrum of electrical engineering.

CATEGORIES

The skill categories change notably across PB games, with skills moved between categories, duplicated, and left out of specific games. This causes problems with OCC Related bonuses and other mechanics if playing megaversally. A standard set of categories would definitely help.

One problem with categories is the way PB may add a new category with a setting, as is the case with the Cowboy category. If the category is not listed in the OCC Related list of categories in an older book or left out of a future one, it becomes unclear whether that category may be accessible to OCCs in older books or other settings. Your suggestion of a RESTRICTED descriptor in the skill description would go a long way to resolving that without removing offending categories. Any skills in the category that are not restricted and are relevant to other categories could simply be duplicated, like the Prowl skill being in both Physical and Rogue categories, leaving the Cowboy category where it is. Then a game rule could be made to state that if a category is not mentioned in the OCC Related list, any unrestricted skills could be made available to an OCC without bonuses.

Another issue to consider is putting too many skills in a single category - Pilot and Technical are examples of this bloat. These could easily be broken down into smaller categories (i.e. Pilot-Land, Pilot-Water, Pilot-Air, Pilot-Space) so OCC Related bonuses could better reflect the nature of the OCC. Why does a RPA Ace OCC get +10% on Pilot: Kayak? Also, by breaking these categories up into more relevant groupings, basic foundational skills could be added as discussed above.

Hope this feedback is helpful.

desrocfc wrote: Bringing total skills from 300+ to 100, less is modern settings, less still in Fantasy.

While there are bound to be some skills that could be condensed, for the most part I do not think you're going to get that much of a reduction without losing variety for character creation.

I started with the 1E Robotech books. There are 189 skills across the entire line I could identify (8 are restricted to specific OCCs, 6 are duplicated "PRO" versions, 51 are the various highly specific Mecha Combat skills, Language is an option like in other lines but I don't call out any here, it should also be noted here that Language also covers Literacy in one package), though practically speaking could be reduced down to 126 skills (getting rid of OCC specific skills, the PRO version, and reducing the MC to a generic 2).

Rifts by comparison has atleast 396 (ignoring Literacy/Language specific selections, which alone would add at least 112 for each that I can point to with page reference for one or the other, and I don't have every Rifts book), and some OCC/RCCs provide additional skills restricted to that particular class that are not counted here. Which includes the new general format for Robot Combat types (previously it was like 1E RT, where it was supposed to be highly specific for a given model/type). This is not limited to just RUE, but also non-overlaping ones from previous WB/SB/DBs.

And I have to say that 1E Robotech Characters ended up being pretty blah in terms of skills since they could all look alike outside their OCC provided skills compared to Rifts.

Perhaps the issue with skills isn't the number of skills, but the relatively small number you can select from the overall list (which at 1st level is less than 20 typcially out of ~400)?

descrocfc wrote:Adding options for Specialization and Tradecraft Professional; each time chosen boosts the Baseline percentage of the skill by +10% (e.g. select Cook twice becomes semi-professional, select three times to become a professional chef)

This is already present in the system IMHO and doesn't accomplish anything. OCC (essentially Pro), Other/Related (better than a hobbyist but not quite professional I would say, though a few can even be upgrade to Pro), and Secondary (essentially Hobby).

This also seems to defeat the purpose of having Other/Related and Secondary Skill Selection Periods.

descrocfc wrote:Removal of Cowboy and Horsemanship as Categories (yes, this is a thing); skills under each are either moved or wrapped up somewhere else

What does this accomplish really? You don't really lose any skills, just categories of skills.

desrocfc wrote:Specifying skills that synergize, giving small benefits to each other when selected (+5% bonus)

I think this is already present given some skills give bonuses to other skills. Now you may not agree with the what skills should synergize, but it already exists.

I can certainly agree that IQ should not be the governing attribute to provide a bonus to all skills if it is high enough. That however can slow creation down as you cross check the skill for the relevant attribute.

desrocfc wrote:Those marked as secondary skills can be rolled even without the skill (most times with penalty); selecting Secondary skills allows them to grow as
character advances

While I agree there should be skills that can be done untrained, I think it should be it's own list and not just using the Secondary skills list.

desrocfc wrote:All skills in same category start at the same Base level (e.g. all Science starts at 25%) less Secondary Skills, which start at 40%

- All skills advance at +5% per level

Now advancements I could see being flat/universal to speed leveling character's skills up, but the base starting skill should remain variable like it is now since it factors in complexity of a skill and could in theory be seen to already account for penalties. Example the Medical Doctor Skill and Field Surgery can both perform medical surgery, but the MD Skill would require you apply penalties if they had to operate under the Field Surgery situations which could in theory already be factored into Field Surgery's 30% base (assuming they also have MD skill, which is not required). So all you've really done is shift the complexity around.

desrocfs wrote:Skill Challenges: What skill directly challenges another skill, and what Skill Challenges look like

Perception aspect of the system already covers this to some extent, if not completely.

Hey, look, my probably-decade-or-more-old approach to Palladium skills:

https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/p ... onkey.html

And a bonus, about combat styles:

https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/r ... tyles.html

Warshield73 wrote:<snip>

I've come to dislike massive quote-ridden replies to replies, so a more holistic response to your points:

Facebook: yeah, there are some highs and definitely some lows to be found on FB.

Number of Skills: This was a qualitative approach, strictly reducing the number of skill choices to a more reasonable number - and just skills. So when looking at Electrical Engineer, you add the Specialization of Robot Electronics, it is still an Electrical Engineer Skill Roll, but they gain a bonus of 10% to Electrical Engineer, which is the skill that is rolled against (NOT Robot Electronics anymore).

So there are some "smooshed" skills, but in a way to make normalizing Core Rule set changes across all the game platforms. Another example would be Concealment and Detect Concealment under a single entry, or the various Horsemanship skills (e.g. Cyber-knight, Cossack) as Specializations under the Horsemanship: General skill, which I would once again place under the Pilot Category. The idea though, is that this is a unified Skill List as part of a unified Core Rules system to cover *all* PB games. When you actually read each skill description, there are several that scream duplication. I mean, why have SCUBA as anything other than a Specialization for Swimming. You won't ever SCUBA unless you can swim, so it just made sense. Heck, most of the Medical Category is actually a Specialization of the Medical Doctor skill, so it seemed a pretty easy fix.

Intelligence gets a synergy bonus from those other skills, each of which remain separate, discrete entries - no worries there.

Not touching the psionic or magic powers, but I sure do have an idea for the OCCs. Not sure Kevin's thoughts, but I have discussed with Sean.

Arbitrary Rules. Admittedly, there are elements that are out of context, which may be part of the issue. I'm also not looking to get litigated.

Cowboy Category: In order to present a unified system, I would remove it and place the Lore skills with the remaining ones under Technical, Horsemanship back under Pilot, others combined to make more well-rounded skills than having 6 variations of the same. Animal Husbandry (general) would be a 'Parent' skill, with Specialization options for Dogs, Falconry, Taming Horses, Cattle, Exotic Animals, and any others a rancher might need for xeno-cattle.

Skill Advancement: More a question of simplification to keep players from spending copious time establishing the level-up mechanics per skill. As for Demolitions: Disposal, I'd have it as a Specialization to Demolitions, giving Demolitions a +10%; as an Occupational Skill it will likely see a significant bonus to boot (+20% range), which means a 1st level character likely starts around 55-60%. There would also be bonuses for assistance, which could add another 10-50% to the Skill Roll, less penalties for stress, etc. I know enough combat engineers to know they spend a LOT of time making sure they square this "stuff" (really) tight.

Skill Challenges. We are pretty much saying the same, except I added the layer of bias to the player with the higher skill percentage in case of a tie, and provides a better chance to succeed the roll and still beat the "rookie" in the challenge. Rolling lower doesn't necessarily give the veteran a bonus, as the rookie needs to do the same to just pass. At this point though, I'd argue we're into semantics: po-TAE-toe or po-TAH-toe.

Thanks for the feedback though! This was also a 'shot across the bow' for PB to get them to see some of the interest and ideas for updating the Core Rules System. Feedback (well, the constructive type) is always welcome.

Cheers.

Grazzik wrote:<snip>

Similar to Warshield73, a holistic response.

Skill Advancement. Some of my reply to Warshield73 may apply here. There is some validity to the argument of skills levelling up at differing rates. On the whole, I found that a single +5% across the board for all skills was simply simpler to start with for any kind of sweeping changes. I did toy with the idea that Espionage/Rogue Categories might advance at +4% per level, but the impact over six levels of advancement makes negligible effect.

Skill Synergies: This is a first crack at it, and there may be some synergies that make obvious sense, others perhaps less so. The mechanic already exists in some skills (e.g. Surveillance Systems and Electrical Engineer), but I like the idea of it being formalized across all skills; this doesn't mean all skills have synergies. I also tried to keep from chasing Alice down the Rabbit Hole by not over-comparing.

Player Agency: This is really something unspoken but a key tenet to the review, and hopefully the updated version we end up seeing. The Core Rules Set, with an updated, revitalized skill list should still provide that very key Player Agency in character creation. What is implied but not yet spoken to is a re-presenation of the Occupations under a new dynamic. I am purposefully leaving the Occupation part as a blank slate, which ultimately I would see as something that dovetails from the Core Rules (plug-and-play) - insert Rifts Occupations, insert HU Occupations, insert PFRPG Occupations. I don't believe that element of choice is being removed, just amended to make cross-platform changes easier to adapt.

Foundation Catchalls. This was something that never really made sense in the current Skills and I get what you mean; hence the reasons for Secondary Skills getting the 'anyone can roll against the base skill' function. When I looked at Medical, most of them actually rolled up as needing Medical Doctor as a reasonable baseline, or were actual specializations of the M.D. skill. This Category actually was the impetus for that mechanic. You can be an M.D., and then select Bionic and Cybernetics as Specializations, making you a pretty unique and rare doctor, now benefiting from +20% to your M.D. rolls due to the extra schooling you took/experience with bionics and cybernetics over the character without the Specialization. Something also not reflected in the text is the Skill Rolls dynamic is sometimes a 2 out of 3 successes required, with the first failure invoking a -20% skill modifier to the following rolls. Skill Rolls should have some risk, otherwise we're just rolling for the sake of rolling.

Cowboy Category: I really had issues with this Category, more so because it was included in due to WB 14 and the spaghetti western OCCs. Not a fan, particularly when they all are easily reshuffled into other Categories, and have no bearing on Three Galaxies or PFRPG.

Category Bloat: Pilot and Technical are definitely two that have *many* skills. I don't readily agree on removing them, but my take on both sees a lot of rationalization (e.g. I took a hard look at Languages and Lore).

That was great Grazzik, thanks for the input!

ShadowLogan wrote:<snip>

Skill Variety. After three responses, I sense a theme, LOL. All well taken, and something I am sure the overall list would likely alleviate. I'm not looking to get litigated, so there was that restriction. I don't believe the Player Agency or Skill Variety is gone, just presented in a different manner. I too started in Robotech and enjoyed the customization. That said, it *is* unwieldy for new players to navigate.

Occupation Skill Selection. Your analogy on the 1E Robotech Characters is pretty much bang on. Something not defined is the re-write I would propose for Occupations as well. I've already done a couple of blog posts on it (e.g. 200+ Men at Arms OCCs are really easily presented as 12, with MOS-like bolt on skills). Even with this reduction, Players still have wild adaptability with Skills and special powers. I would argue the OCC bloat has made any refinement to the Core Rules as a barrier to significant revision.

Specialization and Tradecraft Professional. I actually did this as a nod to some players that wanted to play someone with a more professional quality to certain skills. It also makes NPCs pretty easy to flash up. Levelling up still adds to the base skill percentage, while most rolling against Secondary for many of these are limited to their maximum, ergo a mechanical differentiation to a hobbyist and someone with more time and experience in the trade. I get where you are coming from though.

Removal of Cowboy/Horsemanship: It allows GM/Players to play around with them and add in other Specializations as they see fit. Cowboy is a mish-mash of Pilot and Technical skills anyway. Horsemanship is literally already presented as a General skill and a list of Specializations.

Skill Advancement. The +5% base was an attempt to streamline. LOL, I actually flipped the script and placed the Field Surgery skill into the M.D. skill, as it really already takes an M.D. to do it.

Skill Challenges. Perception indeed does cover some, but leaves a lot to be desired. I didn't get into it, but in some cases, several skills could be used to challenge another, and the mechanics for this skill-vs-skill not well defined. I just opted to formalize it in order to simplify the game play debate on what does what and when.

All good points Shadowlogan! Thanks.

desrocfc wrote:Occupation Skill Selection. Your analogy on the 1E Robotech Characters is pretty much bang on. Something not defined is the re-write I would propose for Occupations as well. I've already done a couple of blog posts on it (e.g. 200+ Men at Arms OCCs are really easily presented as 12, with MOS-like bolt on skills). Even with this reduction, Players still have wild adaptability with Skills and special powers. I would argue the OCC bloat has made any refinement to the Core Rules as a barrier to significant revision.

I don't run/play Rifts, and have little interest in this particular setting, but I think there has been a bit of a disconnect between what the OCC (as a game construct) seems to represent and how the "nuts and bolts" of an OCC are put together in the books. And this is going back to the "Palladium Role-Playing Game" (Fantasy 1E). When I first picked up that main book, I was looking at the layout of the OCC and skills as though "the way they are in the book is the way they have to be". But I doubt that KS has ever run the game that way. Just look at the Defilers. Basically, he was using that initial fantasy system to run Rifts. After I came to that realization, I was able to look at an OCC as a pattern that could be altered as needed to fit different games and settings within the world. Of course, OCCs are a little different there, since you have OCC skills (skills you automatically start with that are from both the Elective and Secondary lists), Elective Skills (similar to OCC Related in other games which are skills that may be OCC gated), and Secondary Skills that are available to all and have no overlap with Electives.

I also think that I have had a hard time truly thinking about how skills interact with each other. As a game, we tend to think of skills as individual buttons that you press to make a specific thing happen. But the individual skills aren't really truly "individual" once you have put a collection of them together. Should I include the Holistic Medicine & Chemistry skill from the Yin-Sloth Jungles book, or should I simply say that if the character in question already has medical, cooking, recognize/use poison, and some sort of plant lore skill (which are all listed as getting bonuses from Holistic Medicine with the exception of the medical skill) can already do what is in that skill without bothering to fill another skill slot? If you want to have a character that is the hand to hand equivalent of a knight or palladin, but they are from a marshy area where there aren't many horses, do they need to start with lance and horsemanship? They could start instead with spears/forks and possibly substitute in breeding dogs for a canine companion, or maybe use falconry instead. Or maybe they wouldn't have a tie in with a helper animal at all.

Personally, I don't go with the "take a skill multiple times to make it professional". I treat player created things as "gifted (unless the dice hate you) amateur" level of craftsmanship. It will be perfectly serviceable, but does not have the polish of a similar item created by someone for whom this sort of thing has been the focus of their life. In the fantasy game, there are the "optional" scholar and merchant OCCs. I use those to differentiate between people that are "simply" making a living in a certain craft/profession, and those that are trying to advance the craft/profession in question. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent in other settings. The issue with those 2 OCCs is that they have too few skills if you take them straight from the book. They aren't all that bad for a general trader or scribe, but they are ill suited for someone focusing on a specific area of expertise or study. And that goes back into seeing an OCC as a framework. I end up adding to the OCC skill list as needed to give the foundation of knowledge needed for that specialization. Going this route makes them easily viable as a player character as well, since all core knowledge is taken care of which leaves all the regular skill choices to be used to individualize the character. After all, even a journeyman smith is going to have years of apprenticeship behind him/her before becoming a journeyman. Blacksmithing isn't going to be a secondary skill that was some discretionary choice. Most likely mining would be included as well for the geology and mineral knowledge for being able to create the metals needed for a finished product. You don't just dig steel up out of the ground, you have to know the various minerals to combine to turn iron into steel. Depending on the focus of the character, use poison might be in there due to handling acids and dealing with harmful vapors from certain work/processes. Might even want to throw in cooking or brewing into the mix to represent making specific brine (or whatever) quenching baths. But now I feel like I am returning to the previous "skills aren't really individual" thought.

Really, this post isn't to push my point of view on anyone or imply that mine is the "one true way", but simply to say that it is a good thing for the OCC and skill structures to be examined. It doesn't matter if I agree with any amount of what is put forward, but I find it interesting to see other people's thoughts even if I don't intend to ever use them myself. Or maybe I will steal bits here and there to use if the future. Who knows?

Kraynic, some of the games I've been in have done the exact same thing because it felt right for the game. Alternatively, for older/mature characters that may have had a number of life altering changes throughout their years, swapping out or adding a skill or two doesn't cut it and we've used PFRPG rules for dual-, triple-, and in one case quadruple-classing. (Ha! If IRL was OCCs, I'd probably have had at least four by now). The crunch is very manageable with a well-formatted spreadsheet. However, to avoid munchkinism and simply collecting skills for the sake of it, limits are set by house rule. Subsequent class(es) have to be related in some fashion. Though when quadrupling OCCs for a mature character, it is possible to move by degrees quite a ways from the original OCC. So, in short and most importantly, our house rule is that there needs to be evidence of a very strong backstory in the skill selection from one OCC to the next showing continuity in skill use, aptitude, and interest. For example, ranchhands (Cowboy OCC) don't generally become mages overnight, but when times are tough they may become a Prospector OCC or Blacksmith OCC as long as they already had some of the new OCC's skills selected previously as a ranchhand, perhaps a few elective and secondary skills that provide an alternative career path with development and training. That way a story can be told of the ranchhand who was lousy riding a horse, but great shoeing a horse and over time excelled in finding and working the required metals. It also helps nerf the number of new skills that come with a new OCC. That said, the most important part is the story and having fun.

Kraynic wrote:<snip>

OCC Refinement. I'd say that the OCCs, particularly for Rifts, need to be redone into a new dynamic. No secret, I've already presented my ideas for Occupations to Sean and discussed the nuances in one of my other posts. For Rifts, I've filtered the 200+ Men-at-Arms OCCs down to 12 with a multitude of MOS specialties. That formed the basis for the Skill framework I presented. The yin without the relevant yang, so to speak.

Nor do I profess to have the ideal solution, but the hope is that this post and others provide the impetus and attention at PB to drive the market's desire for an improved and refined Core Rules System. I've made my pitch and these posts are really to try out the ideas and see what PB writ-large has to say. It's a piece-meal approach, lacking total context, but at least gets the discussion rolling.

Cheers.

Skill Variety
While the list can be large, even for some older PB lines. I don't think it is as unwieldy as you suggest. D20 Star Wars (2E, the one before Saga Ed) while it had fewer skills, it made up for it with Feats. That is also something you can see in some RPG video games, small skill list but then you have a load of feats/perks (whatever you want to call it) that essentially are skills by Palladium Standards in a lot of cases.

A good deal of Palladium's skills do make sense as separate entities on a list, though there are a small subset that could be folded into each other, most shouldn't be.

The same might also be said for Palladium's OCCs approach when compared to other systems. D&D/D20 might only have a few core classes, but if you factor in things like multi-classing or Prestige class combinations, the end result really isn't any different than Palladium's OCC approach, it's just Palladium has already done the work for you without all that mucking about.

Specialization and Tradecraft This I don't think is needed. You'd be better served IMHO by handling the skill quality differently from each of the Skill-Selection-Zones by the GM than the player, this just means the player has to take the skill in the right zone to get the quality aspect they want.

Skill Advancement I can see why you would fold the Field Surgery Skill into the M.D skill, but I do see why Palladium split them up and do think PB made the right call here (I can see adding M.D. as a Skill Requirement to the skill) in the way the skill is presented.

Skill ChallengesYeah Perception leaves something to be desired, but it would seem to be the way approach to use by expanding it instead of adding another block of rules.

Opposed rolls are also part of the piloting skills in terms of maneuvers and stunts, and such, though sometimes left something to be desired (D100 skill roll vs D20 combat roll). So, the rules might already exist in some form(s) somewhere, leaving it more as a polish existing set of rules instead of trying to create something new. These have never really been part of Rifts like they are in other lines (1E RT, Macross2, HU, N&SS).

Hi
I haven't gotten to read the blog yet. I'm replying more to the general to the idea proposed as well as things mention in the thread.

Personally, I think there should be more skills, so I wouldn't reduce them. What I would do is change how characters are made, and make it universal. I'd start with educational and background skills, then select an OCC followed by secondary skills. I am in favor of general skills and specialization but not how it's proposed. I would also keep categories like Cowboy and Horsemanship. Not only does it make skills for those characters easier to find, and make categories more manageable, but those categories can help reflect their background character's background or OCC. I say this because someone growing up on the ranch would have a better chance to learns to Cowboy related skills than someone who grew up in the city. They would be picking background skills from the Cowboy skill category while a city slicker would be picking city oriented skills. They or similar skills could also receive a bonus as if choses again as a Related, MOS, or Secondary Skill. For example, someone with Horsemanship: General as a background skill would get a bonus it again or selecting Horsemanship: Hitch and Wagon when chosen as an OCC Related Skill.

Which brings me to packing multiple skills into one. Not all related skills need to be bunched together. I think there should be a difference between just Piloting a horse and everything Horsemanship includes. People can ride a horse without knowing about breeding, quality, tricks or any of the other things. They might not even know how to saddle the horse but they can ride it. I'm not saying lumping skills together is bad. It can be good but it'd depend on the circumstances. A cowboy would have the Horsemanship skill. However, others may picked up a few of thee skills separately. Someone who's never ridden a horse could know all about breeds and quality because they study it for horse racing.

I also wouldn't include everything Horsemanship includes as people can also ride a horse without knowing how to hitch a wagon. Being able to "Pilot" a horse might give an advantage to "Piloting" a wagon but not hitching one up. I would say it's a different yet related skill. Having one would give a bonus to adding the other. It also allows you to attempt the other without the skill with less of a penalty. It's like someone switching from an automatic transmission to a manual compared to someone who's never driven at all.

I also think there can be general skills and specific skills without one requiring the other. A person can drive a car of one type without ever being in another type, in which case they shouldn't have the other skill. Someone who's only driven an automatic transmission wouldn't have the skill to drive a clutch transmission. They could steer but that's it. In a way, Pilot Automobile and a few other skills should be two, or more, combined skills. The first "general" part is keeping the car on the road. The second part is what kind of transmission and that can be selected multiple times. That would allow the inclusion of things like a Model T Ford or a Stanley Steamer which don't operate the way cars do now.

Also depending on the skill, the secondary part might even be optional.
An example of that would be Photography. It's actually two parts. Camera operation, and development. Camera Operation can cover a wide array of types so can be pretty much covered with one general skill. The second part has multiple specific types with each being different skill. They can be optional since you don't have develop the take pictures yourself. You can always have someone else do that part.

Another thing I wouldn't do is to is to have the skills go up at the same rate. It's a lot easier to get proficient in an Automatic than it is an a Manual. They shouldn't increase at the same rate.

I also wouldn't roll for specialized skill using the percentage of the base skill. There's also such a thing as a prerequisite being a means to an end. A Cardiovascular Surgeon may have taken all the same classes as a General Practitioner but because they've specialized they don't diagnose colds or set broken bones. They can try but they'd be a they'd have a much higher skill penalty than the General Practitioner because all their time went into learning and practicing their specialty. That's why I think the skills should remain separate. In this case I think choosing the Medical Doctor skill would be for a General Practitioner and again would be for a specialty. The skill percentage increasing is for the specialty. The percentage for General Medical Doctor would be frozen at whatever level the character was at when they specialized. If they specialized early in their career the general skill would be much lower than if they specialized later. In a way it's like changing OCCs.

I would also keep selecting a skill twice as a Professional. It shows that they took the time to study and perfect their craft. Because of that, their work would generally be of a higher quality than that of an amateur with the same skill percentage.


What I would do with skills, besides to redefine/rewrite some of them as I showed above would be to create a master skills list listing all the skill categories and skills available. I'd also have conversion notes for Categories depending on the Game. Computer could be a subset of Technical for the games without the Computer Category. Temporal Skills could be a subset of Science skills. Ideally though, all the skills lists and Character's would be updated at the next printing. All within reason for that game of course. A Palladium Ranger isn't going to be able to select Computer skills on Palladium but could learn them later after rifting to Earth. Really, a big Master Book of Skills with conversion notes would be ideal.

As to OCC bloat....how many specialties does the Army have? Not just MOSs but Rangers, Delta Force, Green Berets'? How similar are they to Navy Seals or Marine units? How similar to units from other countries? I could see a general template condensing some OCC types into one with lots of MOSs with tweaks for other countries but I don't mind what we have either. There should probably be a lot more.

Apologies if my post isn't too clear. I kept getting a lot of distractions while writing it. Hopefully, it makes sense though.

PS
I believe there is a rule allowing characters to try to do something without having the particular skill for it. I couldn't say where to find it though.

Sambot wrote:<snip>

Skill Bloat. I appreciate your opinion, but definitely would argue against both the number of skills as currently presented, as well as Categories. There are clearly skills that are duplication (e.g. Conceal and Detect Conceal) or are so reliant on prerequisites to not be a valid choice outside of specialization (Swimming needed for Specialization SCUBA, Demolitions needed for Specializations Demolitions: Underwater and Demolitions: Disposal). The intent is to make the skill list granular enough for the GM to make something work for the purposes of a Skill Roll, not so specific it needs 5 minutes of research. I’d argue your Pilot Automobile (Automatic Transmission) versus Pilot Automobile (Manual Transmission) and Photography examples are both way too specific for game play IMHO. You learn to drive a car, you get all transmissions; you learn photography, it includes developing, etc.

Category Bloat. Absolutely none (and I mean none) of the Cowboy Category skills are unique enough to warrant the Category. Most are W.P. and Technical skills, which is where I contend they should be nested. The few remaining I’ve actually combined with others to create a generic Animal Husbandry skill, with Specializations Dogs, Falcons, Cattle (which includes Herding Cattle and Branding), Horses (which includes Taming Horses and Branding). Bear in mind this is suggested as a cross-game framework. The Animal Husbandry skill allows the GM to make a new Specialization for anything the adventure requires, such as a D-Bee specializing in Rhinox breeding, whatever.

Horsemanship. I re-wrote the skill to make it both easier skill to read and use. Call it “Horsemanship: General,” for lack of a term (with a pick your animal requirement), under Pilot Category, with Class-Restricted Specializations: “Born in the Saddle” (for Cowboys and the like) and “Combat Rider” (for Cyber-Knights, Cossacks, Knights, etc.) to justify the increased levels of combat abilities. No need for all that wasted text to recreate something with very similar bonuses when you actually read them. No need for Exotic Animals either. A D-Bee wants to ride Fury Beetles, they just select “Fury Beetle” as their steed and carry on.

% per Level. Simply a function of simplifying an overly complex Skill Lists and system. Unless it’s a Secondary Skill (which all start at 40% for reasons already described), if you pick a Technical, they all start at the same level for ease of game design and character generation.

Medical Skills. Medical Doctor is one of the first I played with; I have 6+ suggested Specializations, which removes those skills from the list and cleans it up. Things like Field Surgery disappears, because it is an absolutely redundant skill – only an M.D. would attempt it, and they simply need a negative Skill Modifier to reflect the lack of sanitary conditions or equipment. As a separate skill, it makes no sense whatsoever.

O.C.C. Bloat. I’ll refer you to my blog posts on the bloat. As they are written, 200+ to under 20 with MOS Specializations for variety was, quite frankly, easy-peasy. If the only difference for the various Borg or Robot Pilots is 2 or 3 skills and saying you’re from the CS/FQ/Japan/NGR/Geo-Front/Australia Mega Cities/Russian Warlord/Three Galaxies, then the OCC is not a differentiating factor. What's the difference between a Robot/PA Pilot and a GB Pilot? The Answer: Nothing other than the PA one starts with vice the other. Ultimately, they are the same O.C.C. It’s actually foolish how similar most OCCs are. Quite frankly, for new players coming in, this and skills are a disincentive to the character generation/game.

O.C.C. Rationalization Post: https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... en-at-arms

Thanks for the input Sambot! There's a lot to discuss. Pretty sure tomorrow's blog post on Combat will generate some pretty "passionate" debate.

Cheers.

Mark Hall wrote:Hey, look, my probably-decade-or-more-old approach to Palladium skills:

https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/p ... onkey.html

And a bonus, about combat styles:

https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/r ... tyles.html

Say, did you have a slightly different take on the Easy, Medium, Hard starting percentages?

Reason I'm asking is in my house rules, whenever I've borrowed someone's ideas I try to credit them. So in this case for example I have Easy skills starting at 70%, with a +2% per level. Where I would credit someone I just wrote "Hall"

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:Hey, look, my probably-decade-or-more-old approach to Palladium skills:

https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/p ... onkey.html

And a bonus, about combat styles:

https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/r ... tyles.html

Say, did you have a slightly different take on the Easy, Medium, Hard starting percentages?

Reason I'm asking is in my house rules, whenever I've borrowed someone's ideas I try to credit them. So in this case for example I have Easy skills starting at 70%, with a +2% per level. Where I would credit someone I just wrote "Hall"

Possibly?

Mark Hall wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:Hey, look, my probably-decade-or-more-old approach to Palladium skills:

https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/p ... onkey.html

And a bonus, about combat styles:

https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2015/07/r ... tyles.html

Say, did you have a slightly different take on the Easy, Medium, Hard starting percentages?

Reason I'm asking is in my house rules, whenever I've borrowed someone's ideas I try to credit them. So in this case for example I have Easy skills starting at 70%, with a +2% per level. Where I would credit someone I just wrote "Hall"

Possibly?

Well I'm guessing I wrote all that down sometime before 2010, so been a minute. Actually just remembered a note I recorded with it too, and I'm paraphrasing here - "Number of skills are not the problem, but the starting percentages and per level increases are a chore. So boil them down"

Dustin Fireblade wrote: Well I'm guessing I wrote all that down sometime before 2010, so been a minute. Actually just remembered a note I recorded with it too, and I'm paraphrasing here - "Number of skills are not the problem, but the starting percentages and per level increases are a chore. So boil them down"

Can't have been me. I've been saying there's too many skills for at LEAST 25 years.

desrocfc wrote:

Sambot wrote:<snip>

Skill Bloat. I appreciate your opinion, but definitely would argue against both the number of skills as currently presented, as well as Categories. There are clearly skills that are duplication (e.g. Conceal and Detect Conceal) or are so reliant on prerequisites to not be a valid choice outside of specialization (Swimming needed for Specialization SCUBA, Demolitions needed for Specializations Demolitions: Underwater and Demolitions: Disposal). The intent is to make the skill list granular enough for the GM to make something work for the purposes of a Skill Roll, not so specific it needs 5 minutes of research. I’d argue your Pilot Automobile (Automatic Transmission) versus Pilot Automobile (Manual Transmission) and Photography examples are both way too specific for game play IMHO. You learn to drive a car, you get all transmissions; you learn photography, it includes developing, etc.

Hi. Thanks and I agree there are some duplication. Some skills like Concealment should be a two part skills. One to conceal and one to detect concealment. Like how Medical Doctor is a two part skill with diagnosing and treatment. However, you still need to know the prerequisites. You need to know how to swim before you can SCUBA or swim competitively. Certainly you should know how swim, or have experience with a dive suit to try underwater demolitions.

With skills like Pilot Automobile, I think there should be a general skill as well as specific skills. That would depend greatly on the time period though. Now days, Manual Transmissions are so rare that, Pilot Automobile is pretty much Pilot Automatic Transmission. The character could try to Pilot a Manual Transmission but there'd be a big skill penalty just like there would be if they tried to pilot an hovercar. That's because of how difficult it would be for them to work the clutch and shift gears. A bunch of years ago Manual Transmissions were more common though so it'd be possible to learn both. Someone could take Pilot Automobile and be able to pilot both main types of transmission. Other vehicle types would still get a skill penalty though. Otherwise its like saying Pilot Aircraft would let a character pilot piston engines and jet engines. That's not really the case. They could keep the craft in the air maybe land safely but to really operate the craft they need to learn how.

With Photography, most people don't learn the development part. They just point and shoot. Then drop the film off to be developed or hit print on the computer. Maybe not even print now. And the skill percentage for just taking a nice picture then would be different from now with all the automatic fixes cameras have. That makes it a lot easier to take a nice picture, so they'd start with a higher skill percentage compared to a couple decades ago where the only option a camera might have is a flash. So Photography should should be a multipart skill, with adjustments based on time period. Only in this case, it should cost multiple skill selections if chosen as a secondary skill. That shows the difference between someone who just likes taking pictures and someone more interested in photography as a whole but is still an amateur.

Category Bloat. Absolutely none (and I mean none) of the Cowboy Category skills are unique enough to warrant the Category. Most are W.P. and Technical skills, which is where I contend they should be nested. The few remaining I’ve actually combined with others to create a generic Animal Husbandry skill, with Specializations Dogs, Falcons, Cattle (which includes Herding Cattle and Branding), Horses (which includes Taming Horses and Branding). Bear in mind this is suggested as a cross-game framework. The Animal Husbandry skill allows the GM to make a new Specialization for anything the adventure requires, such as a D-Bee specializing in Rhinox breeding, whatever.

In a way I agree. However, when selecting skills for a Cowboy, having a Cowboy Category does make things a lot easier, especially since it includes skills from multiple categories. I think the Technical Category really could be broken up into subsections, just to make things easier to find. Like how Ancient and Modern Weapons are separate categories. Personally, I subdivide them even more just to make it easier to find things. Another examples would be the Computer Category. Computer Skills used to be Technical skills but now they have their own category.

With Animal Husbandry it should be choses by the animal. Cats, dogs, horses, elephants, etc. Each would be a separate skill. I'd also have the sub skills you mentioned as separate skills. Branding is knowing how to brand an animal safely. It's one skill that covers a wide area of animals. Herding would be another single skill that would cover multiple animal types. You can herd cattle and horses and sheep. Both would have penalties for unfamiliar types. Like trying to herd cats. Breaking Animals would give give general knowledge in how to do it with a specialty in one animal, which could be taken multiple times.

Horsemanship. I re-wrote the skill to make it both easier skill to read and use. Call it “Horsemanship: General,” for lack of a term (with a pick your animal requirement), under Pilot Category, with Class-Restricted Specializations: “Born in the Saddle” (for Cowboys and the like) and “Combat Rider” (for Cyber-Knights, Cossacks, Knights, etc.) to justify the increased levels of combat abilities. No need for all that wasted text to recreate something with very similar bonuses when you actually read them. No need for Exotic Animals either. A D-Bee wants to ride Fury Beetles, they just select “Fury Beetle” as their steed and carry on.

I wouldn't go with class restrictions as others can learn those skills. Like an actor learning a skill for a role. I do agree that the Horsemanship skill should be chosen for each animal. That a D-Bee can select: Horsemanship: Fury Beetle and a Human can select Horsemanship: Elephant. (The name could be better but I don't know what it'd be.)
I wouldn't remove the Exotic Animal skill though. That skill should apply, by animal, to those animals that aren't traditionally riding animals. Like riding an Ostrich. There should probably also be a basic Riding skill per animal. One that just deals with riding vs saddling and caring for the animal.

% per Level. Simply a function of simplifying an overly complex Skill Lists and system. Unless it’s a Secondary Skill (which all start at 40% for reasons already described), if you pick a Technical, they all start at the same level for ease of game design and character generation.

I understand what you're trying to do but I disagree. Some skills are easier to learn and improve than others. Breaking a Horse is a whole lot different than Typing. Chinese is a lot harder to learn than Spanish.

Medical Skills. Medical Doctor is one of the first I played with; I have 6+ suggested Specializations, which removes those skills from the list and cleans it up. Things like Field Surgery disappears, because it is an absolutely redundant skill – only an M.D. would attempt it, and they simply need a negative Skill Modifier to reflect the lack of sanitary conditions or equipment. As a separate skill, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I would disagree about Field Surgery. Field Surgery is more for Military Medical Personnel than it is for Civilian. It may seem redundant but Civilian doctors aren't trained to operate while being shot at.

O.C.C. Bloat. I’ll refer you to my blog posts on the bloat. As they are written, 200+ to under 20 with MOS Specializations for variety was, quite frankly, easy-peasy. If the only difference for the various Borg or Robot Pilots is 2 or 3 skills and saying you’re from the CS/FQ/Japan/NGR/Geo-Front/Australia Mega Cities/Russian Warlord/Three Galaxies, then the OCC is not a differentiating factor. What's the difference between a Robot/PA Pilot and a GB Pilot? The Answer: Nothing other than the PA one starts with vice the other. Ultimately, they are the same O.C.C. It’s actually foolish how similar most OCCs are. Quite frankly, for new players coming in, this and skills are a disincentive to the character generation/game.

I can understand what you're trying to do. I just disagree. The more things are reduced the more things become the same. Just looking at Wiki the US Marines have hundreds of jobs. I don't quite understand how it's done but it looks like there's 79 occupations specialties, each with numerous sup specialties. I think it'd be like everyone gets Basic Training. Then they select an OCC followed a MOS. It does appear that some "MOSs" were consolidated but there's still a lot of jobs. And that's just for the Marines. The other branches would all be different as would those from other countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... ategory_II)

When it comes to Borgs, I both agree and disagree. A cyborg should be a character type. Cyborgs are also occupation types and even chassis types. I think in many cases if a person wanted to play a cyborg they should roll it up like any other character. Then select the chassis they want to go with their character. In other cases though, cyborgs are also an occupation, such as ____ Military's Cyborg Battalion. Those characters would be different from someone who just replaced limbs lost to injury or choice. And they will differ, as will as characters, based on location and organization. They could even be different just because of where they went to school. Like one school having a marching band and the other just an orchestra. Those in the marching band would get a physical skill the orchestra only skill wouldn't.

With Glitterboys, they are Power Armor Pilots. However, they're very specialized. More so than someone just taking Glitterboy Elite. It's like a mechanic who's specializes in BMWs. They could work on other cars but not as well. The specialist also knows all kinds of things a regular mechanic wouldn't know. What bothers me is that piloting robots and piloting power armor are lumped together in one skill. They're different types of vehicles. It's like having Pilot Airplane and Pilot Helicopter lumped together in one skill. They're separate types of vehicles. They should have separate skills.

As for new players, I can see wanting to get into playing quickly. Maybe there should be some quick roll characters. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more detailed ones. When I started playing, I found the lack of options frustrating. I didn't want my character to be just like everyone else's but that's what kept happening because there were only so many choices. It's why I wish there were more educational and background skills for characters as well as skill choices. I look at some characters and see select 2 Other or Secondary skills and I wonder why I'd want to take that character. I know OCCs concentrate on their job but as that's a bit much. Don't they do anything else once their shift is over?

O.C.C. Rationalization Post: https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... en-at-arms

Thanks for the input Sambot! There's a lot to discuss. Pretty sure tomorrow's blog post on Combat will generate some pretty "passionate" debate.

Cheers.

Thanks desrocfc. There is a lot to talk about. I did try to read your blog post but I couldn't get too far. I really need to get new glasses but with all the problems we have, new glasses doesn't make the list. The leaks and cold didn't help too much either but I'll try again when I get warmer.

Cheers