Skills as Switches
Two options: On or Off.
Do you have the skill? Yes, then you gain a bonus in situation X (maybe you get a bonus to your die roll, or maybe it opens up a new sub mechanism or game option)...No, then you just roll your flat attribute (or maybe you just can't perform this type of task at all).
I've played with this idea a few times in my game designs.
FUBAR basically does this...if you have a trait that's relevant to the task at hand, you add an extra die to your pool (conversely if you possess a trait that's detrimental, you either take a die away, or add a negative die if you're all out of positives).
Ghost City Raiders does this. The basic mechanisms simply get you to draw a card versus your attributes in a series of basic situations. New skills allow you to gain bonuses across a range of situations, or allow you to open up new situations.
Tooth and Claw does this, by simply allowing an extra die to be rolled if you've a skill appropriate to the task at hand.
There is an opposing school of thought when it comes to skills. The one which uses gradually developing skill mastery, or levels of ability within a skill. The problem I've had with that paradigm comes down to things like "literacy" as a skill...either you can read, or you can't. When you've got five (or ten...or more) skill level increments in "Reading: English", what is the real significance in increasing from one level to the next? Does your vocabulary simply increase? Would this simply be better modelled by an increase of intelligence?
This is another one of those things where the designers intention for the game is really made manifest through the rules they present to their players.
For the last few years I've liked games where the rules blend into the background. They facilitate play, make sense and move out of the way, rather than standing as overbearing guards at the gateway to narrative.
Just because I've liked that style of game doesn't mean I've been successful at writing it. The first game I published, "Platinum Storm" back in the early 1990's was meant to be a "lite-rules" game, and the whole thing fit into 30 pages (with character generation, a variety of character types, dozens of weapons and scores of equipment types, a basic magic system, and write ups for a dozen pseudo-Japanese provinces). Now it looks messy. It was a smooth system in play, but setting up characters to get to that smooth game play was a nightmare. That game used scaling attributes and skills based on percentile dice, the opposite end of the spectrum to where I now commonly sit.
My next published game "The Eight Sea" from 2008, was a collection of simple logical systems. Each one elegant, but when combined into a gestalt, they became very unwieldy. The actual play sessions I've run for the Eighth Sea have ignored most of the rules altogether, simply focusing on the card drawing mechanisms and the deck of the ship (which drives difficulties for the story). In that game I used two levels for every skill, "basic" and "advanced". It worked pretty well but got a bit confusing at times. It was after writing this that I started thinking of the "skills as switches" concept...what if two skills applied to the situation (could you add bonuses from both)...what about three?
It makes things easier to just say "Yes" or "No", rather than take the other path of applying synergies between skills and cross referencing one effect to see how it apples to another. I don't know if you could argue whether it's more or less realistic, but keeping things simple certain makes the story flow more easily (and thus aids in any suspension of disbelief throughout the adventure).
For Voidstone Chronicles, I think it makes sense to follow the skills as switches option. It fits the 8-bit gameplay style....either you've got access to "Weapon-type A" or you don't...either you can read magical incantations or you can't...either you gain a bonus with the local merchant or his prices are terrible.
The next things I'm looking at to really bring out the style of gameplay that I'm after are "feat trees". The simple combination of feat trees that open character possibilities and skills that simply give a yes/no benefit should allow for some great complexity of character while staying easy to manage.
Do you have the skill? Yes, then you gain a bonus in situation X (maybe you get a bonus to your die roll, or maybe it opens up a new sub mechanism or game option)...No, then you just roll your flat attribute (or maybe you just can't perform this type of task at all).
I've played with this idea a few times in my game designs.
FUBAR basically does this...if you have a trait that's relevant to the task at hand, you add an extra die to your pool (conversely if you possess a trait that's detrimental, you either take a die away, or add a negative die if you're all out of positives).
Ghost City Raiders does this. The basic mechanisms simply get you to draw a card versus your attributes in a series of basic situations. New skills allow you to gain bonuses across a range of situations, or allow you to open up new situations.
Tooth and Claw does this, by simply allowing an extra die to be rolled if you've a skill appropriate to the task at hand.
There is an opposing school of thought when it comes to skills. The one which uses gradually developing skill mastery, or levels of ability within a skill. The problem I've had with that paradigm comes down to things like "literacy" as a skill...either you can read, or you can't. When you've got five (or ten...or more) skill level increments in "Reading: English", what is the real significance in increasing from one level to the next? Does your vocabulary simply increase? Would this simply be better modelled by an increase of intelligence?
This is another one of those things where the designers intention for the game is really made manifest through the rules they present to their players.
For the last few years I've liked games where the rules blend into the background. They facilitate play, make sense and move out of the way, rather than standing as overbearing guards at the gateway to narrative.
Just because I've liked that style of game doesn't mean I've been successful at writing it. The first game I published, "Platinum Storm" back in the early 1990's was meant to be a "lite-rules" game, and the whole thing fit into 30 pages (with character generation, a variety of character types, dozens of weapons and scores of equipment types, a basic magic system, and write ups for a dozen pseudo-Japanese provinces). Now it looks messy. It was a smooth system in play, but setting up characters to get to that smooth game play was a nightmare. That game used scaling attributes and skills based on percentile dice, the opposite end of the spectrum to where I now commonly sit.
My next published game "The Eight Sea" from 2008, was a collection of simple logical systems. Each one elegant, but when combined into a gestalt, they became very unwieldy. The actual play sessions I've run for the Eighth Sea have ignored most of the rules altogether, simply focusing on the card drawing mechanisms and the deck of the ship (which drives difficulties for the story). In that game I used two levels for every skill, "basic" and "advanced". It worked pretty well but got a bit confusing at times. It was after writing this that I started thinking of the "skills as switches" concept...what if two skills applied to the situation (could you add bonuses from both)...what about three?
It makes things easier to just say "Yes" or "No", rather than take the other path of applying synergies between skills and cross referencing one effect to see how it apples to another. I don't know if you could argue whether it's more or less realistic, but keeping things simple certain makes the story flow more easily (and thus aids in any suspension of disbelief throughout the adventure).
For Voidstone Chronicles, I think it makes sense to follow the skills as switches option. It fits the 8-bit gameplay style....either you've got access to "Weapon-type A" or you don't...either you can read magical incantations or you can't...either you gain a bonus with the local merchant or his prices are terrible.
The next things I'm looking at to really bring out the style of gameplay that I'm after are "feat trees". The simple combination of feat trees that open character possibilities and skills that simply give a yes/no benefit should allow for some great complexity of character while staying easy to manage.
.png)
Comments
But in the real world (or very detail-oriented games) Literacy is not a switch. It's easy to think so because the vast majority of people we meet are very literate. Since we don't know many low-literacy adults, look to how a child learns how to read.
They first learn letters and simple words. They need to read out loud to hear the word and comprehend it. Pictures help to associate words with concepts. They stumble on long or unfamiliar words and mispronounce unusual letter-sound combinations.
Eventually, they are able to read simple sentences silently. As they get better, they can deal with more complex sentence structures and rarer vocabulary. Reading speed also gets faster.
Beyond the standard level, you get the ability to read academic or technical writing (this is a case where the lesser of your literacy or the subject skill might be appropriate). You can interpret archaic writings where many of the language rules are different.
Verse verity vexes vanilla. Sophists scan sense serenely.
To see low levels of literacy, look at children learning to read - at first they need a lot of assistance. They start with the simplest sentences with simple words. Picture books help reinforce the meanings. Even then, they usually need to read out loud to trigger the auditory memory to understand the word.
Eventually they learn more complex sentence types, more vocabulary and are able to read silently. As they develop, comprehension goes up as well as speed.
Then we progress above the normal level.
Difficult material usually requires specialized words and language. Technical, legal or academic writing requires significant literacy as well as skill in the subject.
Someone with high literacy could interpret archaic forms of the langauge and is probably familiar with variant letterforms.
(the following would be better shown with proper spacing, but it doesn't let me use any of the monospace tags. Inagine the first word of each line left justified and the second right justified)
verse sophist
verity sense
vexes serenely
vanilla scans