[freeroleplay] S cubed

[Ricardo Gladwell]

On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 10:31 -0700, Troy Truchon wrote:
> I was thinking some more about the idea of a more skill based system
> and here is what I have. I am calling it S cubed (simple skill system)
> as a working title.

I can already think of neat little logo with a stylised S with a tiny
superscript cubed symbol.

>  The basic concept is rather simple, attributes
> (strength, intellect, dexterity) are just too simple to ever be all
> that accurate. Even if you could create a clear list of attributes we
> could argue for months over how best to score them or manage them.

Firstly, I would note here that there is nothing wrong with a skill-only
system, but I'm not sure why you think skills are any more "accurate"
than attributes. Attributes can be fuzzy which is why I can understand
why you might want to avoid them for a realistic game, but skills can be
equally fuzzy depending on how you categorise them. And believe me, you
can back-and-forth as long and hard about skills as you do about
attributes (see the list archive for more details ;)

If you are coming up with good design criteria I would say you should
probably expand on why you feel attributes don't work and why you think
skill-only is better. For example, how do you mean "too simple"?

>  In
> the S cubed system your attributes, called qualities, are derived from
> the skills you have that relate to them.

Interesting, so qualities are amalgamations of different skills. I think
the Epic Roleplaying Game does something similar.

> Your character is made from two different types of skills. There are
> specific skills, for instance how to use a certain weapon or pilot a
> certain vehicle, and then there are field of knowledge skills, like
> marksmanship or piloting.

I'm confused here: do you mean broad skills and narrower
sub-specialisations or 'qualities'?

>  To purchase a specific skill you spend a
> number of points equal to the level you want the skill raised to. Thus
> to buy a skill at three you have to pay six skill points (1+2+3=6).

I like the simple, natural exponential-like curve this simple mechanic
generates.

>  To
> buy a field of knowledge skill you pay the value of every point you
> wish to raise the skill, so you would have to pay twelve points
> (1+1+2+2+3+3=12) to purchase a field of knowledge skill at a value of
> three.

Sorry, probably me having a brain fart, but I'm not sure how the skill
progression differs from the quality progression. Why do you count the
points twice?

> Each skill has one or two qualities attached to it. To determine the
> value of your qualities you average all the skills attached to that
> quality.

Natch, this sounds easy to say but may actually be quite complicated to
calculate in the middle of play. Do you pre-prepare these calculations
before play? What happens with characters with a lot of attached skills?
This could be quite time consuming and error-prone to do. Could you not
simply state the greatest/least of the attached skills or some, simpler
mechanism?

Also, what do you mean by the skills attached to a quality? I thought
that a quality is only attached to one skill. How do you determine which
skills are attached to a quality? Won't this unfairly benefit characters
with those qualities that have more attached skills? Also, why are
qualities both calculated/derived traits *and* bought traits?

>  The exception to this rule are static qualities. A static
> quality is a quality that cannot change without a very good reason.
> The strength of a robot, for instance, does not change so long as the
> robot is properly maintained.

Sorry to sound pedantic, but isn't this sneaking attributes in through
the back door? How do static qualities differ from attributes?

> This system does mean that new skills can drop your qualities, but
> this is actually a benefit of this system. If you take on a new skill
> it will take time and effort away from maintaining those qualities to
> develop the skill.

Actually, this problem may be a sticking point for your system. It could
be fixed by simply finding another mechanism for "averaging" out skills.
Taking the highest skill, for example, would mean you don't have to have
complicated calculations and you don't have to worry about new skills
temporarily dropping your qualities.

> So what do you all think?

I think it has potential, but I think you need to be more clear about
what you intend to get out of the system. What exactly are your
objectives? A roll-under/roll-over mechanic? How do you determine
success? What are your ideal trait ranges?

Kind regards...

-- 
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free RPG Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president at freeroleplay.org