What's new
Star Army

Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.

Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.

  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 October and November 2024 are YE 46.8 in the RP.

Several Skill Questions

CatoTheElder

CatoTheElder

Inactive Member
I recently noticed several discrepancies between the character creation guide and the Nepleslian Star Military page. According to the Neplesia page, a marine needs Communication, Fighting and Physical, Survival, and Strategy (Tactics/discipline).

According to the CCG, Fighting and Physical are now two different skills, and the last two skills no longer exist. In addition, I know that there's another guide that has a currently existing skill, "Survival and Military" in place of the last two. While I certainly don't mind only having to include the new "Survival and Military," which seems to cover the bases pretty well and allow for much more interesting marines by opening up that skill slot, the conflicting entries are a bit confusing.

Also, Leadership. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what Leadership is and who should have it. I'd like to post a character with the Leadership skill, but there's currently a character in limbo on that page due to confusion over whether or not it should be given to new players. From what I have observed, this is something of a point of contention, but it would be nice to have it resolved, or at least have some sort of quick fix to keep new characters moving through.
 
Yeah, the old CCG had Tactics on its skill list, I believe. The Nepleslian skill requirements are based off of that one, to my knowledge. Now that we are moving to a new CCG, I guess some skills had to bite the dust.
 
I think we need to elaborate on what we mean by Leadership, since there are a couple different schools of thought on the subject. There is one that feels that leaders are born and the other that feels that leaders are made. And then there are people who feel that you can teach the principles of leadership all you want but that doesn't mean people will actually listen.

I think people have been going under the impression that taking the Leadership skill set (as well as seduction) will compel other characters to well... listen and obey your orders.

So really, once a player has picked this set, it doesn't really mean anything unless they can actually follow through with it ICly. It's kinda like saying that you're able to pick up any chick and then constantly getting drinks thrown in your face once you start playing because well... your method sucks. So you've just wasted a skill because you couldn't follow through.

I know with Leadership it is very similar but used quite as often unless we are in combat. If a player thinks he can cut it as a leader, I say we should let him try, but remind him that it actually takes some effort to successfully accomplish since we are not making dice rolls to determine whether or not you can make people listen to you. The only time we try to stress that people should actually listen are officer occupational class.

So really, do we need to restrict "Leadership" to Officers only?
 
My argument for restricting Leadership remains the same, though: it can be abused by people suddenly trying to take the lead where they have no right to.

But if you don't want it restricted to officers only, that's fine. I will still discourage people taking it, and instead taking another more useful skill. But I won't force them to change it.
 
Thing is, skill at Leadership isn't something that only Officers would normally have. A Sergeant would certainly need solid leadership skills much of the time, for example. Anyone who was involved in positions like student body president or some such might have a good reason to have some knowledge of leadership. Many firefighters or policemen, or other people trained to take charge of a situation when the fecal matter hits the fan would reasonably be likely to have leadership skills. Should every Tom, Dick and Harry have it? No. But many types of people from politicians and political protesters to officers, or even some small business owners with a staff under them would reasonably have some leadership skill.

Of course, if someone has such, I'd figure their skill should detail what kind of Leadership they are skilled in. A politician isn't necessarilly going to be able to lead in battle or a general going to be able to lead a nation, and either might fail at leading a business. Would some be able to do more than one of such? Certainly, history includes a number of people who have taken multiple types of leadership roles and done well. It also includes many who have succeeded in one and failed miserably in others. The skills of different types of leadership may be related, but they aren't necessarilly the same.

Just my $0.02.
 
I should be precise. I'm not stating my reasoning as I should.

The reason I restricted Leadership is to make sure new players couldn't have it as they were downgrading their characters to the proper ranks. You'd see Santo Hei with Leadership for whatever reason, and I responded, "No, that's not happening. You shouldn't have Leadership as a bottom-rung soldier, no matter where you came from. You shouldn't have a character with assloads of history anyway because you can't write it well/right/whatever."

I was punishing good players for the sins of crappier ones that came along, to make sure those crappy players had no excuse for trying to sneak stuff by. Lately we've had nothing but good players, but I've kept the rule in place, just in case. I always want players to start at the bottom and work their way up because, well, that's how you learn best. As such, why would the Star Army of Yamatai have a character with Leadership as anything lower than a NCO -- a character that should only come with time on the site.

Even more boiled down: It's a rule that, while it had IC reasoning, was mostly an OOC thing. Leadership = respect, and you should earn respect.

Wes, you think I'm out of line on that? I didn't think my line of thinking was wrong, but like I said, I'll do what you say.
 
You're fine, Jake.
 
*nods* Alright. I'll keep watching the new players then, but allow more leniency to the ones that show they're good. Simple enough.
 
Sounds reasonable to me. Proven players get access to it earlier. Since I'm so new, that makes this new policy, although a little fuzzy, very easy for me to follow. :D

Glad that was all hashed out.
 
That brings up another question. How does someone go about learning new skills? Say someone gets promoted to an NCO position and is learning to lead, do you add Leadership and then mention in it that its rudimentary and you're studying it or what? Do you require approval for new skills?
 
Just as you said: mention the skill is "limited" and is growing. It's what I did with Yukari and Leadership, as she didn't start with it.

As to other new skills, yes, you add them as you learn them ICly. Sometimes, time is kind of waved on by so the skill can be learned without every agonizing bit written out.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top