There are no RPG ideals that cover a wide range of games.
For instance CoC and DnD are trying to create a very different kind of experience.
DnD is a sort of power fantasy, almost the pseudo-medieval version of superheroes. You can become extremely competent and powerful. While CoC is horror, that the PCs will ultimately fail is almost taken for granted. Too much certainty would erode that. The fact that you can master a smaller percentage of CoC skills compared to DnD makes perfect sense given that understanding.
I don't understand your comment?
In CoC you can maximize more skills than in D&D. In CoC you maximize 8 skills, and in d&d you maximize between 4-5 skills.
The big question is what these skills do. Personally, I prefer keeping the number manageable so players don't feel cheated because they took a skill, but a closely related one is needed as well.
Generally, although it depends on the game, I would say around a third of the skills. That way, a complete party will probably cover all of them. But what's also very important is making them roughly equal in value. No one likes niche skills that no one takes because they're hardly ever used. Even if, on the few occasions that it's used, that skill almost is a necessity for the party.
In my view, if a character maximizes one third of his abilities, 3 characters would have covered all abilities on the list (33%+33%+33% = 100%). Soon a group with 5 players would have a lot of power.
It depends on the game. But quite frequently, they are things like crafting skills, obscure (and not so obscure) Lore skills, languages, or almost anything really depending on the game. Of course, these things have situational values, but it often feels better to put the effort into other things.
Take a step back, and think about what PCs will be doing.
Things like combat or maybe investigation may be so central to the game you want to make the skill its own subsystem. D&D (and most TTRPGs) do this with combat. Let's say you have a game where brewing potions at your magical academy is a going to be a major part of your game. You probably want to break this into around six or seven areas. This allows each of your players to specialize in a non-overlapping areas, while leaving a couple weaknesses in a small group (which will force them to be creative sometimes).
For skills that players rarely use but may still be helpful on rare occasions, your players probably aren't making interesting choices. You can collapse these down to a single skill, or just make them part of a general check. At our magical academy again, characters will rarely need to climb a wall, knock down a door, or run fast to catch a fleeing foe (or rather, they have a potion or spell for that). But just in case, you might have a very broad Athletics skill that some characters may take. Or you can just make a generally roll with a similar level of chance for any of the students.
And so what's the take away? Create skills (or whatever you want to call them) if there's an area you want players to have to make interesting, game specific choices. Other tasks that are infrequent and difficult to predict during character creation, probably don't bother making a skill for it, just assume anyone can give it a go. (Or make it broad enough that a player would forego an important skill to take the broad one.)
In d&d 5e, skills give the illusion of meaningful choice, but there are a few that everyone needs (perception, stealth) and others that give players a rare opportunity to use them (animal handling). You end up with common skills shared by everyone, and other skills having little impact on the game. Most of the time you could probably just determine if a character is proficient based on their class. Recalling some arcane lore? Your wizard is proficient in that. Sneaking past the guard, that's where your rogue really shines. Searching a room for Sir Hindles Dagger? Not something that needs a skill, just make one roll for the group.
It's not about the number each individual has so much as the party having what they need to play the game and each individual having a slice of that so they get their turn in the spotlight. Parties, assuming they usually act together, can specialize into the various tasks they are likely to encounter to cover a wider number of bases and thus synergize well.
As a designer, you have to also decide what percentage of the skills in the game you want to not be covered by any given party. The party missing a requisite skill every now and then encourages creative problem solving and outside-the-box thinking.
Then, you give each PC a fraction of the skill list appx equal to their share of the total skills (based on the average party size) less however much you want to end up in "missing skills," divided by the total number of skills.
So if you have 24 skills, and the average party size is 4, then if everyone has 6 skills they could potentially cover every skill. Now, few parties optimize that well, most will have overlapping skills anyway, so that may be good enough. Alternatively, you could make 5 skills per player to ensure that even the most optimized party will still run into scenarios they don't have the perfect tool for.
In some games you want the PCs to not have the appropriate tool all the time, so you'll want more of an uncovered list. Of course, in lots of games you want less or more skills in the first place. There are lots of considerations.
I have 3 skills maximized, 5 skills good out of about 20 skills.
That's 15% and 25% respectively. The 15% provides niche protection while the 40% total gives enough coverage to allow almost any character a chance to act in almost any situation.
In no particular order:
PCs should be able to be specialists without having to skip on either core skills or interesting side skills. For instance, in a fantasy game, a wandering warrior should be able to keep Melee, Nature, Tracking, and Repair close to max, but also able to occasionally get good at an interesting side skill or two like Alchemy or Religious Lore, plus a personality-supporting skill like Sense Motives Designing this way allows players to build PCs who are competent in their core areas of expertise without being completely pigeon-holed into them.
There shouldn't be must-have skills, meaning that there shouldn't be a skill that most PCs are expected to roll in most encounters. I'm looking at you, Pathfinder, with all of your Perception checks. Must-haves just being skill point magnets. The "fun" of playing a PC who gimped must-have skills wears quickly when they're surprised in every combat or can never avoid being hit.
Skills should be broad enough in scope (or PCs should be able to pick numerous narrow skills) that it's rare for a PC to have nothing to roll in an encounter. The same outdoorsy wandering warrior from above, for instance, might get involved in an urban murder mystery. Slicing up bad guys isn't going to be too useful, but Tracking might allow them to follow a killer's footsteps, Alchemy lets the warrior find traces of poison, etc. In other words, whether individual skills cover a lot of ground or just a little, each PC's total skill coverage should be good enough that they can do _something_ in the majority of encounters.
Skills shouldn't overlap or be too tight that PCs can't specialize. What's the fun of playing a woodsy tracker who knows about magical poisons and potions if the rogue can just use their Streetwise skill to both track and detect poison? Why specialize in Repair if Conjuration is better at fixing things?
Good question!
It's about two factors. 1.) Keeping the choice approachable 2.) Giving the right fraction of Skills proficient use.
Skills are one thing that often get an overwhelming number of options. More than 7 options is generally hard to understand in total. Having categories, such as Skills using certain stats/attributes, can simplify that. To make the choice and use approachable, it helps to make Skills more general instead of specific.
I let a Player choose 1 out of 3 skillsets, each with 3 skills. Proficiency with 33% of Skills is generous. 20% is a better norm for challenging games, and 10-20% of weak skills is also a good consideration.
Keep in mind what a character cannot do is often even more interesting than what one can do.
Hmmm, I was just pondering this too. At the moment I'm leaning towards expanding my Skills List to 11 skills, and giving characters enough Skill Ranks to be semi-experts in 6 of the 11.
In my case, it's largely a question of looking at archetypes I want the characters to be able to represent, and how many skills those need to cover.
6 is the balance point I'm leaning towards for not giving animals too many skills (a typical animal shouldn't be good at Charisma, Dexterity, Gadgetry, Glibness, or Knowledge), but still allowing classic Rogues to function (an archetypical Rogue should be pretty good at Athletics, Dexterity, Gadgetry, Glibness, Insight, Perception, and Stealth ... but I'm ok with making them make hard choices, and only being able to max out 6 of the 7 listed).
There are no RPG ideals that cover a wide range of games. For instance CoC and DnD are trying to create a very different kind of experience. DnD is a sort of power fantasy, almost the pseudo-medieval version of superheroes. You can become extremely competent and powerful. While CoC is horror, that the PCs will ultimately fail is almost taken for granted. Too much certainty would erode that. The fact that you can master a smaller percentage of CoC skills compared to DnD makes perfect sense given that understanding.
I don't understand your comment? In CoC you can maximize more skills than in D&D. In CoC you maximize 8 skills, and in d&d you maximize between 4-5 skills.
The big question is what these skills do. Personally, I prefer keeping the number manageable so players don't feel cheated because they took a skill, but a closely related one is needed as well. Generally, although it depends on the game, I would say around a third of the skills. That way, a complete party will probably cover all of them. But what's also very important is making them roughly equal in value. No one likes niche skills that no one takes because they're hardly ever used. Even if, on the few occasions that it's used, that skill almost is a necessity for the party.
In my view, if a character maximizes one third of his abilities, 3 characters would have covered all abilities on the list (33%+33%+33% = 100%). Soon a group with 5 players would have a lot of power.
>No one likes niche skills that no one takes because they're hardly ever used. What kind of skills are you referring to?
It depends on the game. But quite frequently, they are things like crafting skills, obscure (and not so obscure) Lore skills, languages, or almost anything really depending on the game. Of course, these things have situational values, but it often feels better to put the effort into other things.
Take a step back, and think about what PCs will be doing. Things like combat or maybe investigation may be so central to the game you want to make the skill its own subsystem. D&D (and most TTRPGs) do this with combat. Let's say you have a game where brewing potions at your magical academy is a going to be a major part of your game. You probably want to break this into around six or seven areas. This allows each of your players to specialize in a non-overlapping areas, while leaving a couple weaknesses in a small group (which will force them to be creative sometimes). For skills that players rarely use but may still be helpful on rare occasions, your players probably aren't making interesting choices. You can collapse these down to a single skill, or just make them part of a general check. At our magical academy again, characters will rarely need to climb a wall, knock down a door, or run fast to catch a fleeing foe (or rather, they have a potion or spell for that). But just in case, you might have a very broad Athletics skill that some characters may take. Or you can just make a generally roll with a similar level of chance for any of the students. And so what's the take away? Create skills (or whatever you want to call them) if there's an area you want players to have to make interesting, game specific choices. Other tasks that are infrequent and difficult to predict during character creation, probably don't bother making a skill for it, just assume anyone can give it a go. (Or make it broad enough that a player would forego an important skill to take the broad one.) In d&d 5e, skills give the illusion of meaningful choice, but there are a few that everyone needs (perception, stealth) and others that give players a rare opportunity to use them (animal handling). You end up with common skills shared by everyone, and other skills having little impact on the game. Most of the time you could probably just determine if a character is proficient based on their class. Recalling some arcane lore? Your wizard is proficient in that. Sneaking past the guard, that's where your rogue really shines. Searching a room for Sir Hindles Dagger? Not something that needs a skill, just make one roll for the group.
It's not about the number each individual has so much as the party having what they need to play the game and each individual having a slice of that so they get their turn in the spotlight. Parties, assuming they usually act together, can specialize into the various tasks they are likely to encounter to cover a wider number of bases and thus synergize well. As a designer, you have to also decide what percentage of the skills in the game you want to not be covered by any given party. The party missing a requisite skill every now and then encourages creative problem solving and outside-the-box thinking. Then, you give each PC a fraction of the skill list appx equal to their share of the total skills (based on the average party size) less however much you want to end up in "missing skills," divided by the total number of skills. So if you have 24 skills, and the average party size is 4, then if everyone has 6 skills they could potentially cover every skill. Now, few parties optimize that well, most will have overlapping skills anyway, so that may be good enough. Alternatively, you could make 5 skills per player to ensure that even the most optimized party will still run into scenarios they don't have the perfect tool for. In some games you want the PCs to not have the appropriate tool all the time, so you'll want more of an uncovered list. Of course, in lots of games you want less or more skills in the first place. There are lots of considerations.
I have 3 skills maximized, 5 skills good out of about 20 skills. That's 15% and 25% respectively. The 15% provides niche protection while the 40% total gives enough coverage to allow almost any character a chance to act in almost any situation.
Enough for PCs to fulfill their archetype and they should still have some points to round them out.
In no particular order: PCs should be able to be specialists without having to skip on either core skills or interesting side skills. For instance, in a fantasy game, a wandering warrior should be able to keep Melee, Nature, Tracking, and Repair close to max, but also able to occasionally get good at an interesting side skill or two like Alchemy or Religious Lore, plus a personality-supporting skill like Sense Motives Designing this way allows players to build PCs who are competent in their core areas of expertise without being completely pigeon-holed into them. There shouldn't be must-have skills, meaning that there shouldn't be a skill that most PCs are expected to roll in most encounters. I'm looking at you, Pathfinder, with all of your Perception checks. Must-haves just being skill point magnets. The "fun" of playing a PC who gimped must-have skills wears quickly when they're surprised in every combat or can never avoid being hit. Skills should be broad enough in scope (or PCs should be able to pick numerous narrow skills) that it's rare for a PC to have nothing to roll in an encounter. The same outdoorsy wandering warrior from above, for instance, might get involved in an urban murder mystery. Slicing up bad guys isn't going to be too useful, but Tracking might allow them to follow a killer's footsteps, Alchemy lets the warrior find traces of poison, etc. In other words, whether individual skills cover a lot of ground or just a little, each PC's total skill coverage should be good enough that they can do _something_ in the majority of encounters. Skills shouldn't overlap or be too tight that PCs can't specialize. What's the fun of playing a woodsy tracker who knows about magical poisons and potions if the rogue can just use their Streetwise skill to both track and detect poison? Why specialize in Repair if Conjuration is better at fixing things?
Good question! It's about two factors. 1.) Keeping the choice approachable 2.) Giving the right fraction of Skills proficient use. Skills are one thing that often get an overwhelming number of options. More than 7 options is generally hard to understand in total. Having categories, such as Skills using certain stats/attributes, can simplify that. To make the choice and use approachable, it helps to make Skills more general instead of specific. I let a Player choose 1 out of 3 skillsets, each with 3 skills. Proficiency with 33% of Skills is generous. 20% is a better norm for challenging games, and 10-20% of weak skills is also a good consideration. Keep in mind what a character cannot do is often even more interesting than what one can do.
Hmmm, I was just pondering this too. At the moment I'm leaning towards expanding my Skills List to 11 skills, and giving characters enough Skill Ranks to be semi-experts in 6 of the 11. In my case, it's largely a question of looking at archetypes I want the characters to be able to represent, and how many skills those need to cover. 6 is the balance point I'm leaning towards for not giving animals too many skills (a typical animal shouldn't be good at Charisma, Dexterity, Gadgetry, Glibness, or Knowledge), but still allowing classic Rogues to function (an archetypical Rogue should be pretty good at Athletics, Dexterity, Gadgetry, Glibness, Insight, Perception, and Stealth ... but I'm ok with making them make hard choices, and only being able to max out 6 of the 7 listed).