Poor & Terrible Skill Ranks: For When Mediocre Just Isn't Bad Enough

[Sanctaphrax]

This could work for NPCs, but I don't think that it'd work well for PCs.

Therefore, I think that it should be intended only for NPCs.

[BumblingBear]

I think it could have a place.

I agree that it's good for NPCs, not PCs, though.

Why?  Because I could very easily see someone getting mad at me at the table for wanting a skill roll from something they decided to take a -1 on.

There are 2 types of people who would take a negative skill in order to bolster another one.  Those are true roleplayers and min-maxers, and in my experience, both of them can get irritated by mechanics for various reasons.  I personally would prefer to just not open that can of worms.

[zenten]

I think having an all kids game with everyone defaulting to Terrible could be workable.

[Todjaeger]

I've let a PC be created with some skills in the Poor and Terrible range.  By coincidence, this PC is about ten years old.

The character has skills following the Skill pyramid, but in reverse (i.e. for every Terrible skill, there also has to be a corresponding Poor skill).  I do allow the PC to get 'extra' skill points to counterbalance any skills with negative ranks, but there are some serious caveats with that.

Given that the character is ten years old, the skills impacted (positively and negatively) have to be thematically appropriate for the character.  What this works out to is that some of the age/growth-related skills like Might, Driving and Resources have been reduced, while skills which are more appropriate for a kid to have high ranks in like Athletics or Endurance can get a 'boost'.

Also, to prevent/discourage min-maxing, there are a number of related aspects touching on the character's like Dirt Poor, you wish you were that wealthy...

In addition, and more importantly given the reduced age of the PC, the PC didn't start at the Feet in the Water level, but a custom level with 4 Refresh and 10 Skill points.  This lower starting level is compensated by an accelerated Milestone rate until the PC reachs Skill/Refresh points parity with the rest of the party.

-Cheers

[Drachasor]

Here's a better question: why should a kid be built on the same budget (feet in the water, chest deep, etc) as a cop?

Harry Potter.

[TheMouse]

I think having an all kids game with everyone defaulting to Terrible could be workable.

I'd default the same as now but give adults higher stats.

[newtinmpls]

Well, I have some really skilled role players in my group, and in other systems I've bent the rules to allow extreemes (of high or low) for purposes of the role playing, so yes, I'd take a chance, and it would probably have to be related to one (or more) aspects.

On the other hand, I have played with some power gamers, and with those individuals, I'd either not let it in, or keep a sharp eye for abuse - and lay on the consequences.

[zenten]

TheMouse: Would you also change the difficulties to accomplish various tasks?

[Discipol]

The rule says "unless mentioned, everyone is mediocre". So a child would still be 0.

A poor skill would actually mean you are going by assumptions rather than logic, if not knowledge. Like trying to kickstart a car using shaving cream, just because it smells minty.

I tried to make a highschool jock, with poor Scholarship, but I came up with Kramer which would die in a rainy night due to drowning by looking upward with open mouth

There is nothing stopping you from having Scholarship 0, and an aspect "Dumb as a stone, lucky as a horseshoe" which the GM will compel to decrease your Scholarship checks by -2, in exchange for a fate point. Forest Gump anyone?

[TheMouse]

There is nothing stopping you from having Scholarship 0, and an aspect "Dumb as a stone, lucky as a horseshoe" which the GM will compel to decrease your Scholarship checks by -2, in exchange for a fate point. Forest Gump anyone?

Compels don't modify rolls. Compels replace rolls. If your GM chose to Compel your Aspect and you accepted, you wouldn't get to roll and would likely be failing with additional (little "c") consequences.