From:	Chris Maxfield cmaxfiel@****.org.au
Subject:	Skill Tests, Specialization and defaulting
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:01:21 +1000

At 13:15 18/07/99 -0500, Sebastian Wiers wrote:
> When I read that, I just ignored it. If you have the general skill, you
>have all aplicable specializations. That's what having a general skill
>MEANS. It just didn't make any sense to me.

I completely agree. I think the strange idea is used in several other
places - I think Underwater Combat is described as a specialization of
Unarmed Combat but a character cannot use the Unarmed skill for Underwater
Combat without penalties.

> On the other hand, it is fully the GM's (and apparently a writters)
>perogative to make a test EASIER on a character if they do have an
>appropriate specilization. Generally this would be a role playing reward-

Same here. I'd only consider doing that if they have some good in-play or
well described story-line experience above and beyond just buying the
specialization. In truth, I either define these strange specializations as
separate base skills or treat them as standard specializations off the base
skill.

>if you have "ettiquette (street)" you probably have street contacts,
>knowledge, and a matching background, so it makes sense you'd do better on
>the streets than sombody with an equally high base etiquette.

For me, these factors are no longer directly part of Ettiquette (x) in SR3.
Contacts are acquired at character creation or in game-play (where a good
Etiquette skill does help), and the knowledge comes from an appropriate
Knowledge Skill. I think its possible to have a character with good street
knowledge (theoretical) and good contacts (money or luck) but a low
Ettiquette (Street) because, in action, he's a social klutz.



Chris