This Skills thread raises a lot of interesting questions about how people want to play their Star Wars game. Once again, thank you to FFG for releasing this beta so all the fans can provide their feedback on the way they want to roleplay such a beloved IP.

Small skill lists can work perfectly well for some games, depending on the game you are running. Look at Apocalypse World or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying for examples of games that have just a few “skills” - neither calls them this, but they serve the same basic function. Yet, these skills are still very evocative and interesting. For an even more extreme example look at 3:16, which has just two skills (fighting and everything else). 3:16 is another awesome game.

On the other hand, you can look at the Dresden Files RPG and it has 25 skills, but these skills are very interesting and Dresden Files is a great game. Dresden Files is also an interesting example because it contains skills for Alertness and Investigation, which is similar to the discussion about Vigilance and Perception. (Personally I like the distinction between Vigilance and Perception.) It is important for the Dresden Files to have these skills, because a lot of the Dresden File gameplay is about two different things, investigating and fighting bad guys, and these two skills represent ways in which different characters are better or worse at those different things.

I don’t think there is a set number of skills below which a game is bad or a number above which the game is bad. It really depends on the game you are playing and the stories you are trying to tell with that game. If 30+ skills will help facilitate the stories you are trying to tell, go for it! If you only want 5 skills to tell a different type of game, do it. At the end of the day, if everyone is having a good time, the number of skills does not make much of a difference.

I agree with Inksplatt that differences in skills allow players to have differences in characters that can be important to the game. Larger skill lists have the potential to provide granularity in distinguishing the characters. However, a larger skill list is not automatically better. I think there is little reason to have two skills that do the exact same thing or to have one skill that overlaps with what three or four other skills are doing. (I’m not speaking about any specifics in Edge of the Empire , but just generally what to think about when constructing a skill list.) A smaller skill list is also not automatically better.

In Edge of the Empire , there is probably little reason to combine two of the currently outlined skills that do not overlap into one skill. If Edge of the Empire is a game about the rough edges of the Outer Rim, where nothing comes easy, and the characters have to pick and choose between their options without ever having it all, then the skills list should reflect this. There should not be skills that a player can pick that lets the character do what is covered by other skills. Such a list invalidates player choices and at the end of the day, makes the game less fun.

Good descriptions of the skills and what they are used for will help players choose skills that will assist them in the types of things they want their characters to be able to accomplish in the game. If it is clear what skill X does and what skill Y does, then players can confidently choose the skills that represent the things they want to do. However, if it is unclear, then a player may choose skill X only to learn later, that she wished she had chosen skill Y, but that there was no indication of that early on.

All this being said, this thread will be an enormous help to GMs out there. First, it helps clarify what skills do, which I think is a big part of the discussion. Second, it is hard to imagine a RPG book that could predict every possible instance a skill check might be necessary in a game–such a task is likely impossible. At the end of the day, GMs will still have to act as referees to determine what check is required in a lot of situations. Threads like this, that discuss what skills do and do not cover, will help GMs make those determinations for situations that are not otherwise covered in the book.

Another important thing to remember is something Jay Little said in another thread:

ynnen said:

An interesting point, that will be tested during the beta period. After playing the game during the beta, players and GMs may find many of their preconceived issues with the skill list not to be an issue at all. After all, almost every character can attempt almost any skill and default to their characteristic dice if nothing else. Further, with the Destiny Points, players can still upgrade dice in their dice pool even if they would not otherwise have the skill ranks to do so. Looking at the game as a whole and all the resources available to the players may alleviate some issues.

I don't really care how many skills a role-playing game has. My focus is not on the quantity of skills, but on the quality of those presented. When I read a skill description, I'm mainly looking to make sure the skill covers ground that no other skill covers, and that it offers a player a compelling option. Each skill on the list, in my view, must be able to justify its existence and stand on its own merits, because I as a GM have to be able to tell my players what the differences are between each skill, and be able to clearly answer when I'm asked what skill is appropriate to resolve a given situation.

There is certainly room for interpretation, and sometimes a creative character will use a skill in an unexpected, but logical way. I'd still like there to be a clear default answer that everyone can agree makes good sense.

When two skills seems to overlap each other, I find that makes it less clear to everyone involved which is appropriate at which times. It also has the side effect of making the players feel like they have to purchase multiple skills to cover the same ground, and they tend to not like that. I tend not to like it either, for that matter.

I realize this is kind of a vague explanation, but I believe a game with unique and clearly-defined skills that do not overlap is to the benefit of everyone. And I can see I'm not alone in that opinion.

So, Inksplat, to answer your remark…

"I don't understand why people are so eager to condense skills and reduce ways for characters to be subtley different."

Because it makes it a better game, in my opinion, and that's exactly what everyone here should be trying to do. If you have a different point of view, great, share it here and let's put all our opinions in front of the designers so that they can make the best decision. I assume you, I'm not "so eager to condense skills" - I'm not on a crusade or anything. Most of the skills in the list are just fine, but I do require each skill on the list to have justification for being there, and there are two cases where I feel that's not strong enough.

Hopefully that makes it a bit more clear.

Completely agree! Well said Venthrac.

Venthrac said:

I don't see a problem with there being a little bit of overlap though, and I'm personally more concerned with having a single skill that gives too much benefit. If you combine Perception & Vigilance, then you're giving a character with one an equal benefit in a fight. Remember that Vigilance is also Initiative.

It makes a lot of sense for a Doctor or a Politico to have a high Perception. It does not in any way make sense for them to have a high Vigilance just because of that. That alone, for me, says that they should be separate. Unless you want every single character to take Perception just so they can roll well during Initiative. In which case, Perception just became pointless if everyone is trained in it.

Combat classes are generally going to have higher Vigilance, while non-combat classes will usually have good reasons to have a higher Perception. A Technician should not be quicker on the draw than a Bounty Hunter, but that's the situation you create by combining the two skills like you suggest.

There is a lot of excellent discussion in this thread -- and I assure you, no decisions were made lightly during the design & development process. Especially the skill lists. The skills represent a unique aspect of EotE: a set of abilities available to everyone, albeit at different costs. With the use of Destiny Points, skills also represent an aspect of the game design that is both accessible and upgradeable to all characters, right from the start.

This differs greatly from talents, which are only available to characters within a certain spec. Granted, you can acquire the spec and eventually invest your way toward a talent, but skill use and training are both universally accessible immediately .

To consolidate key parts of this particular thread (and other forum posts re: skills) regarding overlapping / duplicate or vestigial skills, it sounds like people have expressed concern over:

>> Perception vs. Vigilance (too much overlap, or more clearly, not enough distinction)

>> Surveillance vs. Perception (Surveillance seems too specialized, or its purpose not focused in the right direction)

>> Charm vs. Negotiate (both are based off Presence, so there appears to be overlap or not clearly enough defined applications)

>> Ranged Combat Skills & Close Combat Skills (the former overly broad and all-encompassing, as ranged - light covers dozens of possible weapons -- while with the latter, brawl is primarily focused on only a few, and not everyone sees a clear need for brawl separate from melee)

>> Streetwise vs. Knowledge (Underworld) (they appear to overlap, and/or not enough distinction between information/data/knowledge of and the street smarts/savvy to apply that information in the right situation)

Do those seem to be decent summaries of several of these skill concerns?

Are there any perceived overlapping skills I overlooked from this thread?

Are there any skills you were expecting to see on the skill list that aren't there?

Cheers,

J

Yep, that's a pretty comprehensive list as far as I see it.

Appreciate the perspective and comments, Jay. Is it safe to assume that the text on pg. 84 that says Melee is an opposed check in error? I want to make sure I run that correclty if it comes up during my first game.

In fact, a Beta FAQ to answer such questions would be great =) Maybe we should start up a list of stuff we'd like to see answered.

I might add Skulduggery and Stealth to the list. Skulduggery is "…a broad range of skills that are crucial to performing criminal actions.". While people who are not engaged in crime may have cause to hide, a security guard who sees anyone hiding will likely assume that crime is on the agenda. Stealth seems a subset of Skulduggery to my eye.

Also if you consider Skulduggery in the Streetwise / Knowledge(underworld) discussion it gets even murkier. I'm left wondering if streetwise ought not to be keyed off Presence by default.

cetiken said:

What? No. Criminal Skills are not Stealth. Stealth is being hidden, which can apply even if you aren't a criminal. What does it matter if someone assumes you're a criminal just because you are hiding? Being good at hiding does not make you a good criminal.

Stealth = Hiding

Skullduggery = picking pockets, falsifying documents, that sort of thing.

Streetwise = Knowing how to survive in the city, how to obtain food, shelter, and safety outside the normal "pay for a hotel" sort of way.

Knowledge (Underworld) = Which Hutt is in control of this neighborhood?

Stealth doesn't mean you're a good forger or thief, and characters who want to be able to hide shouldn't also have to label themselves as capable thieves. So they shouldn't be combined. Streetwise also doesn't mean you're good at hiding or being a thief--Obi-Wan is clearly Streetwise in ANH, but he's not a thief. Again, no reason to combine them. Knowledge is about knowing facts, not about taking action. A lawyer in our world is going to have underworld knowledge, but is likely not streetwise in the slightest.

Combining these things makes it so that you force characters into certain frames. Is someone who grew up as an orphan likely to have Streetwise, Stealth, and Skullduggery? Yes, but at the same time, a Sith has plenty of reason to have Stealth, and none to have Skullduggery. Or a Con Artist would have reason to be Streetwise and have Skullduggery, but not have any reason to take Stealth.

This is a narrative game, and the skills are part of creating the character who is going to be a part of that narrative. All of a sudden you have the cowardly Technician, who is Stealthy because of his fear, magically excelling at picking pockets. Or you've got the Bounty Hunter, who is incredibly streetwise, suddenly able to out-criminal the criminals he's hunting.

Yes, skills need a reason to exist, but sometimes that reason is what they can't do rather than what they can. It gives you a range, rather than a binary choice. I want range, not "Amazing At Anything Remotely Associated With Criminals, or Nothing".

So your argument is that foraging documents is the same skillet as picking a mechanical lock as pretending to be someone you aren't, but that sneaking past a guard is entirely unrelated?

Respectfully I disagree. All of those skills accomplish the same task. Now if you wanted to argue for splitting skulduggery into Foargery, Dishuise, Sleight of Hand, trapping, and knowledge(security) that would at least make sense.

No, my argument is that criminal activities fit together, but simply knowing how to hide is in no way criminal, so why limit it to criminals?

That is what you need to ask. Would someone who is not a criminal reasonably want to be able to do this? If so, then it does not belong lumped in with the criminal skillset.

Forgery, lock picking, thieft--those are blatantly criminal activities. Remaining unseen can be people who aren't criminals, like Bounty Hunters, Explorers, Snipers, or Soldiers.

If someone other than a criminal could reasonably have use of the skill, why should using it automatically make a character a master criminal?

Reguardless of what my fellow playtesters may think the skill choices seem decidedly odd. Some are very general (like Skulduggery) and some are very specific (like Surveillance). It honestly has the feel of a chapter decided on by committee.

Personally I lean toward empowering players vice disabling them, so I perfer a more general skill set.

As another example, both Surveilance and Perception can notice a hidden thing in a scene. Am I as the GM supposed to assume that my PCs are running around oblivious and relying on Perception? Or should I assume they are approaching cauiously as I set up a scene? Maybe I should call for either a Perception or Surveillance check and let each PC use the better option. Personally I'd rather be focusing on role playing an npc than how to let them know that thats a thermal detonator in his pocket. If only one skill spotted hidden things I would be happier.

I find the idea of slimming the skill list down even further to be absurd. If anything some skills need to be broken up or subdivided in some fashion.

It sounds like Skulduggery is one of those skills that fall into the "stupidly broad" category and needs to be broken into multiple separate skills. If it is not broken up then it probably needs to be rewritten to apply to multiple attributes. If your going to pick a pocket skulduggery uses Agility, if you are going to forge a document it uses Intellect, and so on.

I prefer a more open ended approach to skills, the more the merrier. In other games I have run, that had stupidly broad skills, I approach skill application based on what knowledge skills the players have. If a player has a knowledge skill and an applicable practical skill, then they may test it. If a player has Repair, they can do general maintenance on a lot of things. If they have Repair and Knowledge: Starships, then they are able to make tests for repairing starships, with penalties. Someone who has specifically put ranks into Profession: Starship Mechanic will be much better than someone who hasn't, it's the difference between a weekend driveway mechanic and a professional.

I have also never gotten behind the idea that all players should be able to test anything. I find the whole notion of "we don't want anyone to feel left out" to be sad and a bit boring. If a player has not had the forethought to buy a skill, they brought it upon themselves and I, as a GM, have no pity for them.

A few thoughts ItsUncertianWho (may I call you Mr.Who?).

You seem to be approaching the game from a simulationist point of view. I respect that. Personally I tend to approach thins from a gamist point of view. It's worth noting that the stated goal is a Narative game. It's both unwise and unlikely to shift design goals this late in the cycle (and I've been itching for a narative game to learn new playstyles anyway.)

Further its important to remember that the people working on this have been pouring their hearts and souls into this project for months. I think incendiary language like "stupidly broad" should be avoided when many other adverbs get the point across. Especially when it a contested point.

Personally I wouldn't object to seeing more skill groups like Soldering, Outdorsman, Urbanite, Techie.

the thing to remember is that characters in star wars tend to be very broadly skilled, virtually every character seems to have modest mechanical skills, passable piloting, and combat abilites, general knowledge about many worlds and cultures, all of them tend to speak atleast a half dozen languages or more, all can easily operate sensor equipment and have general educations.

The big problem comes from diffrent professions haveing widely differing skill costs. Player A wants to create a brilliant mechanic who can fix anything in the galaxy, he needs Mechanics, mabye a bit of computers and possibly a knowledge about such things though none are listed. Player B wants to play a thief an basic criminal type, he needs skullduggery, stealth, survaliance mabye, underworld, and probebly decite. Player C wants to create a diplomat a pure talker someone who is well versed in using words as weapons he needs Charm, Coerce, Cool, Decite, Disciplin, leadership, negotiate, perception and probably atleast one knowledge skill.

now I could be off on several of those skills I wont be getting my book for a day or two but its just an example, I run into this problem in rifts regularly, I allways end up haveing to take 5 or more skills just to preform one simple task many of those skills virtually interchangable, then there are things like Awareness, and search in deathwatch, so space marines and there superhuman senses+sensors in there armor, are very good at finding people about to ambush them or seeing a tiny hidden trigger to a trap on the floor, unless they stop to look for said trigger and then they have virtually no chance of noticing it. luckly the latter books folded search into awareness as a single skill.

@cetikin in addition to how appreciative I am about how you phrased your comments, I would like to point you in the direction of a wonderful gamey/narrative system, the new Marvel Heroic game. Also, a link to the incredible Star Wars hack, with so very many characters to play:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83405758/SWCortex

Also, no funny-funny dice needed. Roll 1 applicable die per box (1d8 Jetpack, 1d8 Whipchord), use a descriptor (normally you get 3 but they aren't presented in that document), plus perhaps a skill (they call them "specialties"). For the Bounty Hunter's purpose, let's say he uses "Relentless Pursuit" as his descriptor for 1d8, and a Vehicle specialty of 1d10. Mr. Hunter wants to escape from the sarlaac pit by using his jets and whipchord, and his skills with the jetpack, plus his unwillingness to die. So roll 3d8+1d10, then, because it's the Cortex+ rules system, only count the 2 dice you'd like to use, typically the high rollers. So maybe you roll 9, 6, 4, and 1, making your total 15 (which is pretty good)… there's more to it, of course, like using plot points to blast the sarlaac in the same roll with a gout of flame, the Limits, using the descriptors to your detriment for more plot points, damage/etc… but it's pretty quick and a good time to play. Corebook for 20 bucks, take some notes from this here document, and you've got gamey/narrative crossover fun for all.

cetiken said:

When I say "stupidly broad" skills, I am not singling out any one game system or designer in particular. It is a general statement of deep disgust I have for any system that ends up with one or two skills that cover a multitude of different and divergent things. In particular, I hate the Tech Use skill in the 40K rpg's. It is so all encompassing that I had to devise a way to put shackles on it, for my own sanity. I got tired of the idea that anyone with Tech Use, per RAW, has just as much of a chance to fix a warp engine, repair a plasma gun, and turn on a computer as anyone else with that skill. This kind of thing just bugs the ever living crap out of me. The 40K rpg's are not the only culprits, just one of the latest ones. I had to do the same thing with Computer Use in RCR Star Wars. Like I have said before, I have not read the actual text of the skills in EotE, so I cannot speak to those in particular, yet.

I don't view "stupidly broad" as incendiary. I have no remorse or fear of telling a creative professional my opinion of their work online or to their face. It comes with the territory of being an artist. Criticism isn't personal, you glean what you can from it and move on. Granted, in person it's much easier to get across the respect and understanding of the amount of effort that another person has put forth.

While I respect it and understand it's importance, it doesn't change the fact that I think Rothko's color field work is a steaming pile.

Back to gaming….

I like skills. I think skills are the single best way to differentiate characters. In my experience, everyone buys the same combat junk, it's inevitable. Skills are what makes a tech a tech and a diplomat a diplomat. This is also one of the reasons I hate classless systems, everything gets so wishy-washy.

You can call it simulationist if you like, but diversity of skills is what makes things unique and interesting.

Here are three people who would be defined by the exact same Athletics skill in many modern rpgs:Gabby Douglas, Michael Phelps, Greg Louganis. All three are extremely talented, extremely skilled, yet none of them can do what the other does, except in an rpg with stupidly broad skills.

The guy at Jiffy Lube who has a repair skill, for changing oil in cars, is not capable of doing repair work, with the same skill, on an airplane. Yet on paper, he is. This is what bugs me. People cannot and should not be able to randomly try to do stuff when they have no skill for it. Sure I can take an engine apart, but I wouldn't know what I was looking for to fix it.

You can give me a broad skill, but give me an assortment of sub-skills to restrict them with. A bonus for specialists or some way to say," Yo, farm boy! Step away from the hyperdrive. You don't know what you are doing, leave it to the big boys. Go fetch the tools." I use a knowledge based modifier system bring sanity to some stupidly broad skills in other rpg's.

example:

Player 1 has Repair, and Knowledge A, Player 2 has Repair and Knowledge B.

Player 1 can use Repair and Knowledge A to repair Item type A. Player 2 cannot repair item type A. Player 2 has Repair, so he may assist Player 1, but cannot do it on his own. Player 3 has no repair skill, cannot help in the work, so he sits back and taunts player 1 and 2.

jordiver2 said:

Is that the game that doesn't include rules for character creation?

Venthrac said:

You're thinking of the old one. The new (and very different one) has character creation.

GoblynByte said:

Hold on, there's a bit of truth to that. It's not point buy, at least in the corebook. But they make supplements that come with the core rules (which includes some random char gen), and it really is intended to recreate Marvel characters, not a "hermetically balanced" party. Normally, I'm all about the balance, point buy characters etc, but it kinda works for this. Just remember to give it some balancing stuff, like more/bigger Limits, more character driven descriptive stuff, some more compelling XP storylines/tracks…

Make note, on that Star Wars Heroic hack, it does have balanced char gen, it's just not too necessary in the super-hero scale of things.

Looking in Combat skills and see Brawl sitting there. (If I missed it, please tell me) I do not see Martial Arts in the list at all. Brawl is rather broad in my opinion. There are quiet a few fighting forms in the star wars universe and I dont think Brawl would be a good stand alone skill to cover those. Echani, Teras Kasi, Wrruushi, just to name a couple. These martial arts should have there own rules of instead of just under Brawl.

Ski

jordiver2 said:

I'm not one to promote an overly balanced system. I think it has ruined more systems than it has fixed… previous Star Wars RPGs included. Mature players can handle a bit of imbalance if it serves the story because they can make up for it by playing an interesting personaility and participating in the story itself.

Ski said:

So I take it that you are not of the school that thinks brawl should be folded into melee and unarmed strike listed as a weapon? That's too bad. We're giving out cookies at the next skill consolidation rally.

Personally I think all the cool moves you want to do with those styles would be better represented by a talent tree than as a skill.

I agree that the specific martial arts should be Talent Trees rather than individual skills.

cetiken said:

I think it should be martial arts skill, then have the talent tree with the forms under it.

"That's too bad. We're giving out cookies at the next skill consolidation rally."

Dont have to be a ass. I am just trying to voice my own opinion on the skill issue I have,

ItsUncertainWho said:

agreed!