GURPSよろず

From the GM or writer’s perspective, designing wildcard skills can be challenging. It’s certainly a task best broken down into parts. Before embarking on this process for the first time, glance ahead to Wildcards in the Campaign (pp. 21-23).

The Golden Rule of wildcard-skill design is easy to grasp:

A good wildcard should encompass all of the standard skills essential to its high concept.

Concocting a wildcard applicable to a range of interesting tasks associated with a well-defined facet of the action is the apex goal ―― above game balance, realism, and everything else but fun ―― and two principles are essential to achieving it:

1. The high concept is linked to what someone interesting (like a PC!) does to move the plot forward.

2. All of the standard skills included and/or the tasks they accomplish are related in some fashion. An effective way to ensure this is to start with a “rules object” that both shares the wildcard’s high concept and involves a skill list ―― excellent examples being character templates, job prerequisites, martialarts styles, and Talents ―― and have the wildcard encompass the same group of skills.

In most cases, this means following one of the patterns below.
These categories often overlap, however ―― and that’s fine.
For instance, for the purpose of defining Cleric!, what matters most is that the cleric’s player has one skill to worry about instead of a huge list; contrasting “divinely inspired holy man” as an archetypal role, “religious concerns” as a broad subject matter, and “priest” as a profession, though an interesting mental exercise, is of secondary importance.

The strongest wildcards are associated with someone’s place in the story. This might be a timeless archetype emergent from mythology or folklore (“mother figure,” “wise man,” “trickster,” etc.), or a part common in popular fiction, like “hard-boiled PI,” “mad scientist,” or “swashbuckler.”
Some such roles resemble occupations or social positions (below), but don’t be fooled ―― what’s important for this kind of wildcard is that it provides an individual with the competence to do everything that’s expected from him or her as a character, which may well deviate from the skill set of any plausible job.
The included skills are those needed to meet plot exigencies, based on the designer’s knowledge of upcoming adventures.
Ultimate Template Wildcards (p. 18) is especially appropriate in this case.

Almost as strong are wildcards that encompass all actions pertaining to interesting subjects. Examples vary by genre but often include detective work, finances, inventing, medicine, nature, personal mobility, social influence, theft, and vehicles. Such skills are convenient in campaigns in which the heroes are so much larger than life that each fills several niches, some of which overlap; e.g., every PC in a space-opera campaign might know the wildcard that covers starship operations, and then the ship’s captain adds one for leadership and tactics, the chief surgeon adds a medical wildcard, and so forth. If an activity would suit a Talent (pp. B89-91), then it could work as this kind of a wildcard.

Another option is to shine the spotlight on wildcard skills’ less-than-realistic nature, transforming them from merely cinematic to outright exotic or supernatural.
The skills they include might be mundane, but linking them into a unit and making extensive use of Additional Benefits (pp. 10-15) can yield gifts no more plausible or less amazing than Flight or Mind Control.
Such wildcards resemble those for broad subject matter (above). What makes them impressive is that they’re reserved for people who qualify for “special abilities” ―― usually PCs.
The gifted are differentiated by their gifts, and wildcards enjoy a seat at the table with spells, powers, cinematic martial-arts skills, ultra-tech implants, and so on.
This structure is often tied to Unusual Backgrounds or built into a template set.

In a larger-than-life campaign, even ordinary jobs (the sort on pp. B516-518), socio-economic groups (castes, social classes, etc.), callings and vocations (like the “cleric” and “wizard” of dungeon fantasy), and so on may give rise to wildcard skills.
If the game will focus on high adventure instead of on daily life and job rolls ―― or if it will emphasize the extraordinary feats of people in these walks of life, rather than their workaday skill sets ―― then assign each occupation or position a wildcard encompassing its “job skills” or the skills that would appear on its character template (see Template Wildcards, pp. 17-19).
The details of this list matter only while defining the wildcard; the player has just one trait to write down on the character sheet.
Save this for situations where complexity warrants it; it’s overkill for a job with one or two prerequisites!

Countless other realistic pursuits ―― from academic subjects through martial arts to the operation of ultra-tech vehicles ―― are defined by multiple skills.
If the GM is tempted to include such structured knowledge in a cinematic campaign where the component skills won’t matter that much, it would be reasonable to adopt the treatment recommended for broad subject matter (above).
This helps protect exciting areas of knowledge from getting smeared across the character sheet and losing their identity.
For instance, to keep kung fu cool, the GM might use wildcards to simplify the lengthy styles in GURPS Martial Arts (which can consist of a jumble like Acrobatics, Breath Control, Judo, Jumping, Karate, Meditation, Philosophy, half a dozen Melee Weapon skills, and a raft of techniques), as described in Style Wildcards (pp. 15-16).

Rarely, everybody with a given ethnic, biological, or other origin can perform certain feats of skill. Such stereotyping is widespread in tales that put drama ahead of realism, especially pulp stories ―― consider the “Red Indians” in classic Western yarns, every one of whom knows Axe/Mace, Bow, Camouflage, Riding, Tracking, etc. Wildcards offer a concise alternative to complex templates in such cases. Follow the guidelines given for occupations or positions (above), but include the skills that would appear on a racial or cultural template instead of an occupational one. Alternatively, adopt the simplification in Ultimate NPC Wildcards (p. 18).

　The short answer to “How many standard skills should a wildcard skill include?” is “However many you need to cover the high concept properly.” Wildcards cost the same regardless of the number of skills they encompass or what conditions apply, and whether or not they come with techniques, supernatural skills, or Additional Benefits (pp. 10-15).
　It’s important to recognize the economics of character design, though. Most skills are of Average difficulty, meaning that 1 point buys attribute-1 level while 2 points purchase attribute+0. Comparable competence at a wildcard costs 12 and 24 points, respectively. At entry level, then, wildcards are “competitive” only if they include 12 or more skills. Given that wildcards serve many of the same purposes as Talents, it’s worth noting that this is consistent with what GURPS PowerUps 3: Talents calls “smooth Talent cost.”
At the high end, consider that the broadest Talents cost 15 points per +1 to arbitrarily many skills. There’s no strict upper limit to skill count, but as Power-Ups 3 warns, a Talent that benefits more than 17 skills may be too broad. Scaling this bound to the 12 points/level at which wildcards plateau gives a soft cap of around 14 skills.
　The upshot of all this is a useful generality: The rough target range for wildcard breadth is 12 to 14 standard skills.
　There are many possible exceptions to this guideline, though. A general exploration of these follows ―― and Interesting Cases (pp. 15-20) discusses some special categories. The GM who prefers to fly by the seat of his pants is invited to ignore all that . . . if the goal of using wildcards is to simplify character design and accelerate game play, a good start is to avoid bean-counting!

　The above analysis assumes that wildcards include mostly Average skills. This isn’t always true.
At the one-point level: Easy skills are at attribute+0. A wildcard at attribute+0 costs 24 points. Thus, it takes 24 Easy skills to be competitive, making each equivalent to 12/24 or half of an Average skill.
Hard skills are at attribute-2. A wildcard at attribute-2 costs 6 points. Thus, it takes six Hard skills to be competitive, making each equivalent to 12/6 or two Average skills.
Very Hard skills are at attribute-3. A wildcard at attribute-3 costs 3 points. Thus, it takes three Very Hard skills to be competitive, making each equivalent to 12/3 or four Average skills.
　Consequently, if the GM wants to do detailed math to keep wildcards competitive, it wouldn’t be completely illogical to count Easy skills as half a skill apiece, Average skills as one, Hard skills as two, and Very Hard skills as four, and then add up these numbers when aiming for 12 to 14 skills.

Conditional skills aren’t as valuable as general ones. As has been explained already, they’re effectively optional specialties, which are a step easier (see pp. B169-170). Use Skill Difficulty (above) and treat them as a step less difficult when trying to hit the target; e.g., general Acrobatics is Hard and counts as two skills, but Acrobatics only useful in a swordfight is Average and counts as just one. It’s simplest not to count conditional Easy skills at all, but the GM can call them 1/4 of a skill apiece if the math seems important.

　Wildcards that include many ways to do the same thing, or sets of skills that could be bought cheaply via defaults, aren’t as good a deal as ones that offer a selection of largely independent skills. It’s fairest to give such wildcards more breadth to compensate.

　The most common case is the wildcard that includes a “master skill” and several skills that default to it. Merchant is a classic example, with six skills that default to it ―― at IQ+4 and above, it’s cheaper to raise Merchant and improve these other skills from default than to pay for attribute+4 in a wildcard that includes them all! Many clusters of Melee Weapon skills have this property, too; Shortsword is the target of six defaults as well. In such cases, count the master skill at face value and the rest as Easy; e.g., Administration, Merchant, and Propaganda (all IQ/A), and Accounting, Economics, Finance, and Market Analysis (all IQ/H), would count as one Average skill (Merchant) and six Easy ones, equivalent to four Average skills instead of 11.

　In a larger-than-life campaign, dramatic overlap or the desire to get on with the game can produce similar redundancy. For instance, the choice of which scientific skill a pulp scientist “should” use is largely academic ―― indeed, the GM might be foggy on when to use Chemistry and when to use Physics ―― while Cryptography challenges tend to blend into Computer Hacking tasks for cinematic hackers. If the GM plans to run the game that way, he’s free to treat any set of skills as if they defaulted among themselves. Count the hardest skill at face value and the rest as Easy; e.g., one Average, 10 Hard, and two Very Hard sciences would count as one Very Hard skill and 12 Easy ones, equivalent to 10 Average skills instead of 29.

　Skills that require specialization ―― such as Driving, Electronics Operation, Engineer, Guns, and Piloting ―― are a special case. Talents treat any number of specialties of such a skill as one skill. To be competitive with Talents, it’s a good idea for wildcards to do the same. Count a skill once, at its usual difficulty, no matter how many of its specialties the wildcard includes.

　Here, too, unrelated skills can end up in the same situation as related ones. Notably, there’s no default between Boxing, Brawling, and Karate ―― or Judo, Sumo Wrestling, and Wrestling ―― yet within each of these sets, the overlap is so great that there’s little added value to knowing more than one of the skills. Treat these as effective specialties of the same skill, using the difficulty of the hardest skill in the cluster; e.g., Karate (DX/H) is equivalent to two Average skills, but a wildcard that includes it could count as Boxing and/or Brawling as well, if the GM felt that was warranted.

　Techniques default to master skills that the wildcard (presumably!) covers, so they’re always subject to a version of Skill Overlap (p. 9). Therefore, if the GM considers skill counts vital for balancing wildcards, it’s only fair to treat each technique as an Easy skill. For instance, adding Karate (DX/H) and six techniques to a wildcard skill is equivalent to including five Average skills.

　Given that techniques can be improved for a mere point per level, some gamers view them as “Very Easy” skills. Thus, it might seem fairer to count each as just 1/4 of a skill, like a conditional Easy skill (Conditional Skill Count, p. 9). However, as techniques work at full wildcard skill level even when they have extreme default penalties such as skill-10, it’s more balanced not to do this.

Wildcard skills aren’t the only traits that link groups of standard skills. The GM contemplating allowing them needs to be familiar with how they differ from the other possibilities.

　Talents (pp. B89-91) and wildcard skills share the goal of using a single trait to improve several skills at once. However, a Talent is meant to be a plausible inborn aptitude for objectively related skills, whereas a wildcard is learned and doesn’t concern itself unduly with realism ―― it’s about dramatic ability and skill interrelationships.

　These two mechanics are intended as alternatives. If a wildcard and a Talent exist to cover the same skills, and the GM permits a character to have both, the Talent doesn’t improve skills covered by or defaulted to the wildcard. Obviously, this means Talents shouldn’t include wildcards ―― that would be superfluous at best, unbalanced at worst. The GM might want to offer only one or the other for specific groups of skills, or in the campaign in general.

　Expert Skills (pp. B193-194) and wildcard skills both specify lists of skills they can replace. However, an Expert Skill can only answer factual questions about a narrow theme, whereas a wildcard enables all tasks ―― including practical ones ―― relevant to a broad “high concept” (though a few conditions might apply). As well, an Expert Skill never allows technique use, while a wildcard does. And an Expert Skill doesn’t get Additional Benefits (below). This is why Expert Skills are so much cheaper; compare, say, IQ+0 for 4 points to attribute+0 for 24 points.
　These two categories of skills aren’t strictly alternatives. In principle, someone could have both. In practice, a wildcard automatically includes and stands in for any overlapping Expert Skill, so a character with the wildcard skill would only list the Expert Skill separately if he had raised it past default (Improving Standard Skills From Wildcards, pp. 5-6) to be better at answering factual questions. And to state the obvious: Expert Skills cannot stand in for wildcards!