Morik said:

Oh, wow, I didn't even catch that. Now I feel like a dick, ha. Sorry!

GoblynByte said:

This kinda makes me happy.  Languages are almost never fun.

GoblynByte said:

on the Order 66 the designers address this. Basically it was felt that it was not a needed skill since throughout the movies characters have no problems understanding aliens (Han and Chewie as an example). In situations where they can't that would be more of a plot driven device.

I tend to prefer a short list of skills, each of which has wide-ranging utility. I'd be inclined to houserule Underworld away and fold it's use into Streetwise.

Gallandro said:

Fair enough. I'm fine without them, just wanted to make sure it wasn't an oversight.

Inksplat said:

lol… Don't worry about it:)

On the subject of redundant skills, I'm not sure we need both Perception and Vigilance, either. The skill to be aware of what's around the PC is usually Perception. I tend to think of vigilant characters as maintaining a constant perception of their surroundings, which I think the Perception skill handles capably. It's the reason why, in other RPGs, characters check perception to detect an ambush just as it begins, and can then act in the surprise round.

I'd also consider renaming Surveillance to Security and folding other security-related applications into it. Surveillance seems like a really specific concept to have its own skill, where the other skills are generally more broad in scope.

Venthrac said:

Its active vs passive. Some people are really perceptive when meaning to be, but are otherwise oblivious. And still others are constantly alert to danger, but not to a strange smell in the air or something off about a crime scene.

I don't understand why people are so eager to condense skills and reduce ways for characters to be subtley different. Active vs Passive is a great way to differentiate skills, I think, because all by itself it helps define a character with very little effort. Is my character Sherlock Holmes or Jason Bourne? Both are very smart, keen guys, but Sherlock is infinitely more likely to get ambushed than Bourne, and Bourne is much less likely to notice the dust on his attackers cuff that signifies where his base camp must be.

I like that sort of distinction.

Venthrac said:

I agree with much of the above. The Skulduggery, Stealth, Streetwise, and Surveillance skill seem to be distinguished primarily by what stat they default to. 

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.