RPG Skill Lists

Most contemporary RPG systems have a list of skills characters can possess. These can range from simple checklists of a few general areas, to vast indexes of possible fields.

Most RPG systems can be categoriesed as one of three levels of RPG skill specificity. Broad skills cover whole categories of thematically related skills that may or may not realistically be related. Moderate skills cover smaller areas, but still include a variety of different specialties. Narrow skills cover an even smaller range, usually limited to a specific application of general abilities.

To illustrate, let's look at what skill sets might look like for the two most common RPG skill fields, combat and social interaction. Games with broad skills might have a single skill called "Melee" or "Influence" that cover the entire category with a single statistic. Moderately specific games might have a number of different skills, like "Diplomacy," "Intimidate," "Sword," or "Polearm." Games with truly narrow lists might have dozens of categories of each - "Public Speaking," "Interrogation," "Rapier," and "Guisarme-Voulge."

Some games use a mix of different levels, indicating the system's intended focus. A hack-and-slash dungeon crawler-might have 20 combat skills and one social skill, whereas a highbrow narrative system might have the reverse.

Other systems mix various levels by allowing or requiring specializations within broader categories. Various incarnations of D&D and WoD have allowed players to advance general combat skill, but include some abilities or rules grant special bonuses for using their weapon of choice. Some variants of the FUDGE system ignore the distinction entirely, allowing players to make up skills/traits as narrow or specific as their GM will allow.

However, I'm more interested in the values and advantages of the different categories.

Broad skill categories seem to be on the upswing - most indy RP systems these days use very limited skill lists, providing a basic mechanical outline and assuming the players can just roleplay the specifics as they like. Dungeons and Dragons cut its skill list in half for 4th Edition, going from 36 core skills to 18. Broak skill lists are probably the most mechanically elegant, because they streamline character creation and gameplay at little cost of mechanical relevance.

The advantage to moderately specific skills is not one of mechanics, but one of characterization. While some argue that roleplaying should be the responsibility of player rather than the rules, I've always been a big believer in encouraging characterization through the system itself. I think it is important to provide rules that allow a character sheet to show the difference between the Green Arrow's skill at archery, Batman's skill with batarangs, and the Punisher's skill with guns. (Yes, that's a geeky example. Yes, I'm mixing Marvel and DC characters.)

Narrow skill list have always been pretty rare, except as optional specializations. GURPS is the only system I'm familiar with that uses truly specific skills as the core list. The GURPS skill list is somewhat absurd, containing over 350 entries and a wide variety of everyday skills including Accounting, Economics, Administration and Finance. Even if these are distinct skill sets in real life, I can't imagine that level of specificity serving much purpose as a roleplaying mechanic.

I'm looking into some ways of trying to find a balance between mechanical elegance and creative freedom. I think the best option may be a variant of the systems that involve general proficiencies with optional specializations.

Starting at "Heroic" - RPG Character Power Level

Many RPG systems have various tiers of character power. D&D 4E has Heroic, Paragon, and Epic levels. Savage Worlds has Novice, Seasoned, Veteran, Heroic, and Legendary characters. Even GURPS suggest starting point values for characters who are Average, Exceptional, or Heroic, all the way up to Godlike.

What power level characters start at is a huge thematic decision for a campaign, and in some cases for the system itself. For example, the original D&D was a much grittier system where a first-level character was basically a commoner with a sword who could easily get killed by a random orc or goblin in a fair fight. However, D&D 4E is explicit about the fact that even first-level characters are the best and brightest of the world, heroes in their own right with skills and powers beyond the ken of common soldiers and guards.

Games vary quite a bit in how powerful starting characters are, but they mostly fall into three categories:

1) Average - Normal people, who will be faced with exceptional circumstances and become special, or even heroic. This is an increasingly-rare starting point in RPG systems, and isn't the default for any system I can think of.

2) Exceptional - The best athletes, warriors, and scientists, but not yet heroes in their own right. Many systems have characters start out this way, including World of Darkness.

3) Heroic - Powerful characters with some adventuring under their belt, but a long way to go. This is the default for D&D, and the suggested starting point for GURPS campaigns.

I vastly preferred D20 Modern's advancement system to that of its partner D&D 3E, and it wasn't until I started playing GURPS that I understood why. D20 Modern starts characters at the "Exceptional" level, as individuals with great potential but no fixed heroic path. Characters take level in basic classes like "Strong Hero" and "Smart Hero" before they can advance in more specific roles like "Martial Artist" or "Mage." This was always much more thematically appealing to me than D&D's system where a level one Wizard was still an established adventurer with battle magic at the ready.

This realization came to me when I started running GURPS games and figured out how much I preferred running 100-point "Exceptional" starting characters to the 150-point "Heroic" suggested level. Personally, I find the story of seasoned cops and novice hedge-mages becoming heroes to be the most compelling starting point for a campaign. Of course, I'm much more likely to change things up in either direction for experiments and one-shot games.

My thesis here is not that some starting power levels are universally better than others, but rather that each has thematic implications that should be taken into consideration. Here are my opinions on what to consider before choosing a system/power level for you next campaign:

Average

For the most part, players don't want to roleplay ordinary people. The only time I would suggest using this power level is for horror games when you really want the characters running scared, normal people in trapped circumstances beyond their control. Otherwise, let your characters be more awesome than this. Few modern systems default to this level, but many have rules for it or can easily be adapted.

Exceptional

This is the place to start if you want to run a long-term campaign with interesting characters and story development. It allows characters to be awesome and grow into heroes in a meaningful manner. On the other hand, it may not be the best choice for many short campaigns or action-centric games where heroes need to hold their own from the very beginning. World of Darkness and Savage Worlds default to this level, and GURPS is well-suited to it.

Heroic

This is the traditional starting-point for action RPGs and casual games. It allows characters to "get right to the good stuff," using their rise to heroics as backstory rather than gameplay. D&D 4E starts here and GURPS 4E suggests it as the default level.

Personal preferences aside, these are all viable routes - just be sure to pick the right one for your campaign.

3 DnD Tropes that Have Outlived their Usefulness

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm insulting Dungeons and Dragons. It was the first major RPG, and has kept pace with the industry over the years. However, no first attempt is perfect, and a few of D&D's imperfections have influenced RPG design longer than they should. This is my short list of RPG tropes that have outstayed their welcome.

1) Rolling for Statistics

I'm not sure who first thought, "Hey, what if some players had to start with characters that were randomly worse than those of their friends?" but I'm surprised at how enduring the practice has been since then. Fortunately, most systems are finally edging away from this method. Even D&D has largely abandoned this concept, listing it as one method among several in 3rd Edition and an openly-discouraged option in 4th.

I understand that the concept has some visceral and nostalgic appeal keeping it alive, but it's such stunningly bad design that it really needs to die out. Rolling dice for hit points at each level is a particularly egregious variant.

2) Overcomplicated Experience Systems

Let's look at a quick sample of the 3rd Edition D&D combat experience rules: First, look up the challenge rating for each of the opponents faced. Then, use these to figure out the total challenge rating for the encounter. Consult a table comparing the CR of the encounter and the average level of the heroes to determine the total experience for the encounter, then divide that experience between the heroes evenly. And even though you've already scaled the experienced based on the heroes' level, it's set up so that each level requires exponentially more experience to advance.

Now let me suggest an alternate system I came up with off the top of my head: You get one point of experience for overcoming minor obstacles or encounters, three points for difficult ones, and five points for defeating important opponents or completing major campaign goals. Characters level up every 20 points.

I get that there are reasons to use systems more complicated than the one I suggest, but lots of games still use ridiculously complicated systems that require multiple tables, multipliers, and scalers. These systems are fine for computer and console gaming where the numbers are crunched automatically, but are overcomplicated and completely unnecessary for tabletop RPGs.

#3) Loot-Based Economics

My first two points are easy targets - anyone can attack bad game mechanics. Looting is much more of a sacred cow, fundamental to many game designs. "Kill monsters, steal treasure," is one of the basic principals of the fantasy RPG.

In my experience, though, few things hurt drama or willing suspension of disbelief as much as looting corpses. It makes perfect sense in certain circumstances (post-apocalyptic settings, killing dragons with treasure hoards) but you don't see many books or movies where the heroes rifle through the pockets of every mook they kill.

Looting is a fine concept for "gamist" systems that aren't trying to emphasize storytelling or realism, but it has been far too widely-used in RPG design. Noble paladins shouldn't have to strip-search fallen opponents for loose change.