Totally love the flexibility of the system, my one hesitation with it is that it kind of tops out at 5 attribute and 5 skill, so there's very little room to improve before you're the best in the world. I do much prefer a system where it's open ended, but just kind of pointless (and massively expensive) to keep improving.
Not quite, unless the rules are different in more modern versions, GURPS is 3d6 rolling under your skill, and from memory doesn't involve the attribute. Rather than this would be rolling dice equivalent to Skill + Relevant Attribute.
I like that for the same reasons, and it's what I'm using in my own homebrew system. Now, should a character that does not have any points on a certain skill but plenty in an attribute be as competent as one with a couple on each when testing that skill? For instance, you have a climbing test coming. Two characters have to go over a wall. Character A has Dex 4 and Climbing 0, while character B has Dex 2 and Climbing 2. Should they be equivalent?
I can totally get that, innate talent will get you so far, but actual skill should be better. But I tend towards simplicity, preferring rules which are light and get out of my way to let me run my game, so I think I'll just be letting them be equivalent.
Suggestion: When defaulting (skill zero) you succeed only on a six. This means if the threshold (number of successes needed) is low, you have a chance to succeed. But only skilled characters have a chance of achieving higher thresholds. Since they have the potential (in theory) to score 2 successes per die.
I've only played a couple, and I generally find that they lean on Attributes so much, that someone who is specialised is far better than a more generalist character. While they can be fun, I find it easy to see how you could make a character to dominate the system, gaming the rules (and find it annoying when I spot other players doing exactly that). My preference is definitely for skill based systems, I just find them more flexible.
The Vampire skill mechanic is a classic. Flexible and easy to understand.
Totally love the flexibility of the system, my one hesitation with it is that it kind of tops out at 5 attribute and 5 skill, so there's very little room to improve before you're the best in the world. I do much prefer a system where it's open ended, but just kind of pointless (and massively expensive) to keep improving.
Sounds something like GURPS
Not quite, unless the rules are different in more modern versions, GURPS is 3d6 rolling under your skill, and from memory doesn't involve the attribute. Rather than this would be rolling dice equivalent to Skill + Relevant Attribute.
@@RPGGamer true GURPS is under on 3d6
If you play different systems GURPS is tough because you get used to trying to roll high
I like that for the same reasons, and it's what I'm using in my own homebrew system.
Now, should a character that does not have any points on a certain skill but plenty in an attribute be as competent as one with a couple on each when testing that skill?
For instance, you have a climbing test coming. Two characters have to go over a wall. Character A has Dex 4 and Climbing 0, while character B has Dex 2 and Climbing 2. Should they be equivalent?
I can totally get that, innate talent will get you so far, but actual skill should be better.
But I tend towards simplicity, preferring rules which are light and get out of my way to let me run my game, so I think I'll just be letting them be equivalent.
Suggestion: When defaulting (skill zero) you succeed only on a six. This means if the threshold (number of successes needed) is low, you have a chance to succeed. But only skilled characters have a chance of achieving higher thresholds. Since they have the potential (in theory) to score 2 successes per die.
@@dantherpghero2885 That's _exactly_ what I'm doing in my game. xD
I'm curious how you feel about games without skills? I think I prefer most implementations where games just do away with skills altogether.
I've only played a couple, and I generally find that they lean on Attributes so much, that someone who is specialised is far better than a more generalist character. While they can be fun, I find it easy to see how you could make a character to dominate the system, gaming the rules (and find it annoying when I spot other players doing exactly that).
My preference is definitely for skill based systems, I just find them more flexible.