Limiting Skill ranks by Attributes

[Taliesin]

Cross-posted from the Decipher forum:


One (small) thing that bugs me about the CODA system is that Attribute scores aren't granular enough. You only get skill bonuses for every two levels of score exceeding 7. IMO, that's not enough shades when your grayscale is only 1-12. Each and every ATT point should count for somethnig. As it is now, the only time a 10 STR is better than a 9 STR is in a STR test, which doesn't come up all that often.

However, the CODA system is unique in having an identical scale (1-12) for both Attributes maximum (racial bonuses notwithstanding) and maximum skill level attainable. So there's a correlation between natural ability and skill that's unrealized in the current rules (beyond ATT bonuses of course). Why not leverage this more? How 'bout limiting your skill level by the ATT score that governs it?

Riddle me this: When considering natural ability alone (ATT), why should someone with an 8 NIM be able to achieve Amazing skill level (12) with a bow, same as someone with a 12 NIM? Granted, the guy with the 12, gets an additional bonus for higher NIM, but the guy with the 8 can still achieve AMAZING proficiency even though his natural gifts (NIM) are only Average, statistically speaking. Can training and experience really overcome our own natural limitations that dramatically, or does it merely allow us to realize our potential granted by our natural gifts?

If ATTs determined max skill level, a character with NIM 10, could only reach 10 with Ranged Combat (plus bonuses for Specialties, Edges, Order Abilities, etc.). Racial ATT bonuses would apply, so Elves could achieve 14, wheareas Men could not.

This would have the benefit of making every ATT point more meaningful, and would put a logical and consistent "cap" on character abilities, instead of the rather arbitrary 12 which is cited now (although I understand why 12 is the number).

In this system, characters could raise their ATTs through Advancements as always, and thus their skill "ceiling". Such training, along with Specialties and Order Abilities, would simulate the ability to rise above your natural ability through determination and will, while Edges and Affinities would simulate natural talent in a particular skill or group of skills ("he was just born to it"). Limiting skill ranks by ATT scores would also help draw a better distinction between races, and provide a path to Second Age "legendary" stats and abilities, that we've heard so much buzz about lately.

Seems to me this is a very good idea. A couple of folks on the Decipher board brought up a couple of good counterpoints, but the concept's held up very well under scrutiny thus far.

Can anyone think of a good reason this just won't fly? Am I missing something obvious here?

Gratefully,

T.

[Sarge]

I can see some real pros and cons to this rule. It's definitely realistic; some people just can't reach the skill level others do. OTOH, a lot of players won't like to hear that their characters won't be able to improve a skill no matter how hard they work at it.

Here's a thought: use the standard rules for advancing skills until the skill level equals the ATT. To improve the skill beyond that, the character would have to spend more picks. Maybe one pick more for one level past the ATT, two picks more for two levels past the ATT, three picks more for three levels, etc. That would be less limiting for the characters, but the cost would make it less likely for them to want to put the effort into practicing a skill they clearly don't have the talent for.

[Taliesin]

Thanks for the feedback! You have a valid point, but under my proposed system, characters <i> can </i> improve skills beyond their initial ATT score by simply advancing the ATT score in question, as usual. They have to pay more, and advancement is slower, as in your suggestion, but no additional mechanics are required. There's a further benefit of advancing your ATT: you raise all the skills governed by that ATT instead of paying through the nose to advance a single skill. It seems more realistic, desirable, and rewarding to improve your limiting ATT, than stuggling to advance a single skill beyond the level of that ATT.

What do you think?


T.

Originally posted by Sarge
I can see some real pros and cons to this rule. It's definitely realistic; some people just can't reach the skill level others do. OTOH, a lot of players won't like to hear that their characters won't be able to improve a skill no matter how hard they work at it.

[ben hur]

Looks good, Taliesin!

As a rule, when dealing with house rules (no pun intended), I like them very simple; in fact, nearly all my house rules are to make the game simpler.

And that's what I like about your idea; it is incredibly simple!

I definitely think I'll use it; not as much as a concrete ruling (i.e. I won't say 'no, you have 4 Wits, you aren't allowed to go to 5 ranks in Track skill) but much more as a guide (i.e. I'll say 'you've only got 8 Nimbleness; it probably wouldn't be a good idea for you to go to Ranged Combat skill rank of 9).

By the by, what would you do in the situation of, say, Games? Games can be governed by Wits, Strength, Nimbleness, and probably the other attributes too; so if you have Games (Arm Wrestling) would the max be your Strength? And if you have Games (Chess) would the max be your Wits? If you have Games (Arm Wrestling, Chess) would the max be the highest of the two, the lowest of the two, the average? Or would it be the normal attribute that the books states (I believe Wits)? Actually, you probably wouldn't be that strict, I know I wouldn't.

Thanks for sharing this!

[Taliesin]

Thanks, Ben (or should I call you KoR?), and you're welcome!

In the case of Games, I would allow each specialty to be governed by the appropriate ATT, as normal. So a player with Games (Arm Wrestling, Chess) would be limited by his STR when Arm Wrestling, and his WIT when playing chess. So I guess you'd have to break up the specialties into separate skills (like languages), which is probably more realistic anyway. Games is a special case, I never understood why someone would be equally accomplished in Arm Wrestling as in Chess (to use your example) anyway.

Very perceptive of you, thanks again!

T.

Originally posted by ben hur
Looks good, Taliesin!

As a rule, when dealing with house rules (no pun intended), I like them very simple; in fact, nearly all my house rules are to make the game simpler.

And that's what I like about your idea; it is incredibly simple!

I definitely think I'll use it; not as much as a concrete ruling (i.e. I won't say 'no, you have 4 Wits, you aren't allowed to go to 5 ranks in Track skill) but much more as a guide (i.e. I'll say 'you've only got 8 Nimbleness; it probably wouldn't be a good idea for you to go to Ranged Combat skill rank of 9).

By the by, what would you do in the situation of, say, Games? Games can be governed by Wits, Strength, Nimbleness, and probably the other attributes too; so if you have Games (Arm Wrestling) would the max be your Strength? And if you have Games (Chess) would the max be your Wits? If you have Games (Arm Wrestling, Chess) would the max be the highest of the two, the lowest of the two, the average? Or would it be the normal attribute that the books states (I believe Wits)? Actually, you probably wouldn't be that strict, I know I wouldn't.

Thanks for sharing this!

[MightyCthulhu]

Taliesin, I like your idea so much I've used it (or something similar to it) in a FUDGE game I ran a few years ago.

As an aside CODA is not unique in having a attributes and skills on the same scale, FUDGE does this also.

I decided that attributes would represent a characters "potential" in related skills. I myself am not fond of hard limits (especially in a system a coarse as fudge) so I assigned an additional cost to skills bought above the related attribute. I reasoned that with diligence (extra point cost) a character could surpass his perceived potential.

In my game Attributes could not be advanced, but in CODA they can. So I think your system would work out very similarly to mine (the extra cost being the necessity to advance the attribute in order to advance the skill.). I think it is simple and dovetails into existing mechanics well. I'll steal it for my upcoming game!

Cheers!

[Taliesin]

Cool! I've heard of FUDGE but have never played it. I just think its too cool that the ATT scale matches the Skill scale. Seems like an unique (or rare) opportunity that should be leveraged more than it is.

Thanks for the feedback!

T.

Originally posted by MightyCthulhu
Taliesin, I like your idea so much I've used it (or something similar to it) in a FUDGE game I ran a few years ago.

As an aside CODA is not unique in having a attributes and skills on the same scale, FUDGE does this also.

I decided that attributes would represent a characters "potential" in related skills. I myself am not fond of hard limits (especially in a system a coarse as fudge) so I assigned an additional cost to skills bought above the related attribute. I reasoned that with diligence (extra point cost) a character could surpass his perceived potential.

In my game Attributes could not be advanced, but in CODA they can. So I think your system would work out very similarly to mine (the extra cost being the necessity to advance the attribute in order to advance the skill.). I think it is simple and dovetails into existing mechanics well. I'll steal it for my upcoming game!

Cheers!

[GavynnAlexander]

T-
Read the above about the ability to advance a skill beyond the ATT by spending more points. You countered it by saying that you should spend your advancement points to raise the governing ATT. Maybe, her is my take-
If you want to get better with the bow, but your NIM won't allow it which is easier 1) to drain hard and long to improve the bow skill by using those muscles etc. over and over 2)or to increase your bodies overall NIM score?
Do you want to a character who wants to get better first to have to attend an arobics class for six months to improce NIM (I know this is an extreme example) and then go back to the bow.
I don't know, I guess I am just saying why would a character not choose to advance NIM. Spend a lot and get a little, or spend a little and get to advance every NIM skill.
Maybe I am not articulating very well, and I like the idea of limiting limiting skills by ATT, but something is not stacking up to me.

[Taliesin]

Yo, G--

Well, I think the suggestion was that it would get more expensive to advance a single skill every time. Raising your ATT would be the same cost everytime. so it would be cheaper, initially, to raise the skill, but a far better value to raise the ATT since it also raises all other skills governed by that ATT. I guess you could let a player choose the advancement method....

Thanks for the input!

Originally posted by GavynnAlexander
T-
I don't know, I guess I am just saying why would a character not choose to advance NIM. Spend a lot and get a little, or spend a little and get to

[Elendur]

You got a great idea here! I know i will use it. But probalbly not on every skill, instead have certain skills that use it and ones that don't. (for Amr. Com. yes, for Craft: Gardening no) I also like the extra picks thing for once you go past your limit.

[vgunn]

Taliesin,

Niffy idea.

After running a few sessions of our campaign we felt that STARTING characters were entirely too strong. We didn't like the idea that most minions could be mowed over at such an early stage.

So after a few sessions we ended the campaign and tried something different in order to control the power level of characters in the game.

For us the beginning characters seemed too strong, so we wanted to limit the level of skills in comparision to the level of advancements. So our rule was basically advancement +1. This limited power-mongering in a single skill, made for well-rounded characters, and really illustrated the difference in and important of Attributes Scores and Racial bonuses. Went through standard character creation and used the five free picks at the end as their first advancement.

It was also done to prevent balance. I know this sounds wierd, but it did. For, example we didn't want to see a Hobbit be the equal to a Silvan Elf in Ranged Combat.

We also got rid of Orders and there was no non-order cost penalty. All Orders basically became Elite Orders. We also eliminated (Wizard) or restricted (Ranger) Elite Orders and made them much more difficult to obtain.

Again our thinking was we wanted a long-term campaign with characters growing in power over time. Yes, they would become Heroes in the land but it would take awhile and combat was much more dangerous (thus taking on a Troll or band of Uruk-Hai after initial creation was much more of a risk).

Now you must remember this is how WE felt the game could be better and certainly not everyone would see it in the same way.

But one thing we didn't think of was restricting skill level to attribute level and what you've presented is a great idea.

Should I go back and run a campaign using CODA, I would definately use your house rule. Well done in my mind.

But then again, what do I know?