Citadelian RPG?

[valadaar]

I think it would an interesting discussion/project to see what kind of game system the various citadellians could put together.

I propose we discuss the building of a complete set of rules - or even just discuss it.  Perhaps even sharing ones own home-built systems or pieces therof.  There are lots of good systems already out there, but none are to me at least, perfect   Might we be able to get closer to that?

Of course it depends on what people want and the style of gaming they prefer.

I would like to start with the obvious - Fantasy.

Even basics are open to question - do you want to have character advancement beyond that acquired through in game success (wealth, prestige, etc)?

Thoughts folks?

[MoonHunter]

Ah game system design, one of my favorite topics....

If we work on a game... might I propose a few concepts that have some interest and applicability.

No classes.  Archetypes for the characters will be suggestions and give a base platform that gives you a base 20% (or so) and can be adapted.   So you buy an archetype package.  Knightly training would be 40 points.  Army training 18 pts.  Militia training 12. Tribal Warrior 16.  Sailor might be 18. Horse Nomad might be 8.  So if you had a Horse Nomad (culture), who makes their living as a Sailor (professional) and had some marine (Militia) training (life exp), 28 of their 75 points for example.   

So Archetype packages would be professional, life experience, and cultural. 

Point buy.  Build a character. Take on the attributes, skills, and abilities.  Flaws can balance out your character.    Rolling can be fun, but lets not. 

Everyone is considered average have a rating of Good for most things (unless you have taken a weakness in it).  You buy up your abilities. This worked well for Fudge, Spirit of the Century, FATE, and Castle Falkenstein, and other still.  Now I am not saying that we need a verbal link, a verbal ladder .  I am thinking we could go with a Base 0, with +/- 5 . This mechanism worked really well for Ars Magica (4th and maybe 5th ed is available for free). and True 20. 








........

[dark_dragon]

I'm game.

Thumbs up for the archetypes. I also second point buys.

I propose no attributes. They don't add anything to your character. So, you have STR-15 and DEX-20. Who cares. It doesn't really tell us about your character. If it doesn't add storytelling depth, it shouldn't be on your character sheet.

Secondly, negative traits should have a cost. For example, taking a skill at -5 should cost as much as taking one a +5. This is because weaknesses add to the storytelling depth and narrative power of the player. The cost in char-gen shouldn't reflect what the skills do to the character, but what they do for the player. Ie, they should reflect narrative power.

For example,
A) You are very poor at sword fighting in a society where it is the expected norm. This gives mild narrative power to the player. For example to avoid duels, and to affect the outcome of a fight (even if your character suffers, the player has gained greater control.)
B) You're a functional illiterate. This allows you to affect the outcome of an investigation (by not being able to do it) so you have to resort to other means. => greater narrative power to the player

In effect, bland, average characters that wouldn't warrant a second look are free to buy, because they have very little narrative power in the gameworld. On the other hand, the one-eyed dellusional monk pursued by the Circle of the Crytal Mind (TM) has a lot more narrative power. This should cost the player, even if it means that bad things will happen to their character.

I'm  biased. I would suggest whole heartedly stealing FATE's aspect compel/invocation mechanics. In all the games I've played, players have loved the apsect mechanic.

For example,
Godric, who is a pious[3] knight[6] with a drinking problem[4] can have his drink problem compelled by the other players so that he is made to dance on top of the bar with the sultry bar maid. (this should cost the other players somehow, since they gain narrative control). He can reply by invoking his pious[3] trait, but since his pious trait is limited to 3, the players may out-buy him and force him to dance anyway.

In game, those kind of example have been awesome and memorable.

Id also add a way to break the rules. It is a game, after all. Some sort of mechanic to change the scene a little for dramatic effect, or to dynamically declare that you know someone that works in the publishing industry, or that you know how to shear a sheep. Whatever. This should come with a cost to avoid abuse, but avoids the players feeling like they have no control (which will turn them off mighty fast). Of course, this depends on what the mood of the game is. This wouldn't work in an horror gain, unless it came with ridiculous reduction to your sanity.

[valadaar]

If I were to consider Roleplaying nothing but interactive storytelling, I would agree, but I don't.

 I'll show my colors here - my favorite game systems are rolemaster, with 1st ed AD&D then D&D 3.5, so dispensing with much of the mechanics of gaming is hard for me to swallow.  I am wholeheartedly in favor of simplification and greater emphasis on roleplaying/story-telling, but cannot agree with the statement that if it does not add storytelling depth, it does not matter.

Regarding Archtypes

I've been thinking that again in terms of simplicity, the default character is a generic mercenary.  If you say nothing else, then you are a simple soldier with decent life experience, good physical attributes, and many unexceptional skills.  This costs you 0 points to select, leaving all else for customization.

You can diverge from this - Knights gain prowess in combat but gain penalties in 'everyman' activities - craftsman skills, streetwise, etc.  The player can offset this by spending generation points.    Basically you can head outwards towards more and more specialized characters, but at the cost of either skills, attributes or generation points. 

Basically a Knight is not better then a mercenary - only different.  I know this is not realistic in real life - the advantages of greater amounts of free time afforded to nobility allowed for more time training and acquiring experience. 

[manfred]

Basically a Knight is not better then a mercenary - only different.  I know this is not realistic in real life - the advantages of greater amounts of free time afforded to nobility allowed for more time training and acquiring experience.

Well, in game you can always declare, that those ignoble characters were always a bit 'special' (i.e. adventurer material), and so have accumulated more skills relevant to adventuring than others of their station.

Or they just have different skills, something your average knight doesn't have. (And let's not forget things like knowledge, experience and contacts - sure you may be a lowly peasant by birth, but you know their lot better than anyone.)

[MoonHunter]

So you want a fairly traditional RPG, nothing in the current crop of games is for you.  Pity. You should check several of them out.  Of course, if you like Crunch, you should go with Burning Wheel.

Val, you said nothing was sacred.  In most systems that are not Heartbreakers, nothing we are proposing is that far off the norm.  My Primary Systems are Hero, GURPS, Tritac, Cortex, and of course Convergence Point.  I live in a design and customize your character world. I dabble in Fate and White Wolf's (much of the same).  I think a lot of the people who have mentioned it here are obviously not of the D20 mold, nor are into the crunchy (i.e. Rolemaster). 

Now you can have a bit of realism, or some balance through points and a bit of character logic.  That is why "packages" (if you don't like the world archetypes) are useful.  They let you take foundation skills (unlocking them?), in which you can build on from there.

Unless you have a specific setting with the characters being of a specific type in mind....

A baseline of mercenary is silly.  Your baseline should be farmer or guildsman.  I person who has about 8 points of skills (to borrow Hero for a moment, 8 out of a starting heroes's 150). Mercenaries need training or experience or time in the militia.  Knights get additional training, and have to expand into other areas (heraldry, courtly acts, and temporal power).  The Mercenary baseline eliminates my thief (so I can really fight, rather than run? cool.  And my scholar does the same? 

Now to take your other element, I can get to be a knight, but only if I penalize myself as common skills. What you are proposing is a zero sum game.  Without a system of flaws to augment that, you will find out characters end up looking really odd.  So I get to be a great starting fighter by buying off all my scholarly skills, my art skills, and maybe my social skills. 

There would also be no accounting for backgrounds either. That is a flaw of D&D, and was only partially addressed by Rolemaster.  There is a reason many gamers look at those systems and shake their heads as simple. 

Re: Attributes. I guess you play games where attributes contribute little or nothing to the characters. In other systems they are key to conflict resolution.  However, we could make them advantages or disadvantages effectively.  You have Strength Gift, you can lift all sorts of things and do extra damage.  You have the Strength Flaw, you are tired out lifting that book. 

The Fate Compell is one of the reasons people don't like Fate, as it is hard to understand until you experience it (a few times).  I would move it off that.  Trait based systems work, but they need some underlying crunch to make them work,

As for negatives go to the positives, it barely works in Risus and leads to a lot of really silly things. Then you have the whole burn traits and apply things oddly. It is very hard to teach new players, esepcially those with any RPG experience. 

I too would like to avoid totally narrative games.  Unless your entire crew is into the cooperative storytelling experience and willing to take part of the GM chore, those games work really well on the short term and fail in the medium to long.

I could suggest Thematic Batteries instead.  A character has a trait that defines a significant part of them.  Taking some adverse because of it, powers it up.  Applying the trait, grants you greater success. 

I take Military Man as a Battery.    I charge it when I get to be a hard ass about regulations, I am telling off my female officer because women should not be in the traditional military, when I dress down civilians.  Once charged, I can use it to (bend the rules) and grant myself extra success or actual success (if I fail).

If I take Scholar as a Battery, I charge it when I stop being practical, I go off on academic tangents, I argue about trivial things, I spend time reading rather than taking a watch.  I could discharge it for knowing an obscure fact, fixing the science equipment, able to speak that odd language I didn't completely know until a moment ago.

You see how this goes.

[dark_dragon]

Manifesto: DEATH TO THE CRUNCH!
EDIT: Warning: I have kind of gone into crusade mode.

A baseline of mercenary is silly.

Agreed. Local pimple-faced pizza delivery guy is a far better baseline. 

Now to take your other element, I can get to be a knight, but only if I penalize myself as common skills. What you are proposing is a zero sum game.  Without a system of flaws to augment that, you will find out characters end up looking really odd.  So I get to be a great starting fighter by buying off all my scholarly skills, my art skills, and maybe my social skills. 

I disagree. Flaws do not balance. They ADD! Imagine that you could get paid, in game, for having a flaw. A flaw becomes a meta-revenue stream for you (the player), hence, it should cost you. And you should get rewarded for roleplaying a flaw. You're roleplaying. Penalising a player because he roleplays a flaw well is basically shooting yourself in the foot. It promotes bad roleplaying, or worse, no roleplaying.

There would also be no accounting for backgrounds either. That is a flaw of D&D, and was only partially addressed by Rolemaster.  There is a reason many gamers look at those systems and shake their heads as simple. 

I completely disagree. Accounting should be only for background. In real life, you background reflects who you are and what you can do. Baseline humans are scarily similar in capabilities. It might be controverial to say that 90% of the people reading this could, with appropriate training, pass Navy SEAL indoc. But it's true. It's your background and backstory that decide what you're capable of. Saying that because you have STR=23 you can climb a wall and if you have STR=15 you can't is like saying that because you're a girl you can't do math[1]. It feels arbitrary, promotes munchkinism and really doesn't foster roleplaying. It's just a number on a sheet and doesn't get the player involved with the character. Your background should be your stats.

Re: Attributes. I guess you play games where attributes contribute little or nothing to the characters. In other systems they are key to conflict resolution.  However, we could make them advantages or disadvantages effectively.  You have Strength Gift, you can lift all sorts of things and do extra damage.  You have the Strength Flaw, you are tired out lifting that book. 

Gift of strength... Yawn. Booooooring. Try: {"Fear my might, Weaklings!"} as a trait. Now, not only do you have some ass kicking, but you also have a cool catchphrase, and a backstory of how you acquired said catchphrase. Triple whammy of delicious character developing goodness. You want to be strong? how about {Conditioned at the royal academy} as a trait? Now, you can use it like strength (roll it to move stuff about) but it adds so much more depth to your character, for example, an old comrade might ask you for a favour, etc.

How about the flaws? Well, take {Strength Flaw} replace it with {Afflicted with consumption as a child} - far more juicy. Now, the GM can use this to make you tired when you lift a book, but you can roll it when it comes to knowing stuff about healing, or to contacting people in the medical profession. A good GM will also use your overprotective mother as a humourous sidenote to lighten the mood when you need it, and will use her as leverage when he need to really get at you. See what just happened? We just transformed a bland and boring attribute (Strength Flaw / CON=7) into a wealth of opportunities. Your entire character sheet should be like that.

I too would like to avoid totally narrative games.  Unless your entire crew is into the cooperative storytelling experience and willing to take part of the GM chore, those games work really well on the short term and fail in the medium to long.

If the GM does his job well, the players should end a session going "Oh man, that was so cool when you did ...." "Yeah! do you remember when the dragon did ...", and then go "wait, what was our GM's name again?". It isn't so much about them narrating the story as it is about them having the power to affect the outcome. It's part of the reason we roleplay. We want to feel like we're in control, when often in RL many things are out of our control. If the players don't feel they can affect the outcome (say, they need INT=19, but have INT=16) they're going to get turned off. With something like Fate's aspects, or your proposed Thematic batteries, the players always feel that they can affect the outcome. And if they can't, they should be rewarded for it. The players, not the characters. Make the characters suffer. But the easiest reward to grant and the most fun is narrative power. It's free, easily controllable by the GM, and makes the players feel 10 feet tall.

I could suggest Thematic Batteries instead.  A character has a trait that defines a significant part of them.  Taking some adverse because of it, powers it up.  Applying the trait, grants you greater success.

I take Military Man as a Battery.    I charge it when I get to be a hard ass about regulations, I am telling off my female officer because women should not be in the traditional military, when I dress down civilians.  Once charged, I can use it to (bend the rules) and grant myself extra success or actual success (if I fail).

If I take Scholar as a Battery, I charge it when I stop being practical, I go off on academic tangents, I argue about trivial things, I spend time reading rather than taking a watch.  I could discharge it for knowing an obscure fact, fixing the science equipment, able to speak that odd language I didn't completely know until a moment ago.

Yummm, I like that a lot.  Give power to the players and rewards them for playing in character. Good stuff!

What I'm arguing is that attribute differences are far better handled by something like thematic batteries or aspects. Attributes reward you for being a munchkin. Thematic batteries reward you when you roleplay well. When I said

If it doesn't add storytelling depth, it shouldn't be on your character sheet.

That's what I meant. The mechanics should reward you for playing in character, not for knowing an obscure rule combo, or knowing which attribute should be maxed out for combat.

 [1]: I happen to have a particular counterexample in my head, and she can solve multidimensional systems of differential equations in her head. Scary, scary clever lady.

[valadaar]

I don't want to sound defensive here - open discussion was my hope here and it is not constructive to refer to ideas and opinions as silly.  Simply provide a counter example or argument without getting snippy.  Simply providing a negative opinion without support proves nothing.

I didn't say what I wanted was a traditional system, I only made two points:

cannot agree with the statement that if it does not add storytelling depth, it does not matter..

and

[If I were to consider Roleplaying nothing but interactive storytelling, I would agree, but I don't.]

If this pegs me as only wanting a traditional system, I'm really not sure it does.  Please don't tell me what I want here - I am genuinely interested in this discussion and ideas.   In truth, D_D's points are already swaying me on the above.

Also, just because I put an Idea out does not mean I'm married to it.  I often intermix devil's advocate with my actual opinions, and reserve the right to change my mind.

 The whole idea D_D mentions about buying the "Fear My Might" trait is intriguing.  It does put in in mind of a character being defined by a stack of 'cards' that each define special attributes such as mentioned.

Would "Is a Troll" be one such trait?  (perhaps with a snappier name)

Also, perhaps one should not position a Knight as a starting type at all.  I don't think we discussed the whole idea of advancement but if it is included, then Knighthood should be destination, not a simple assignment at start of play.  Perhaps for pure cooperative fiction where one can play anything from a sentient rat to a God this would work, but I think some things should be earned in play.  Perhaps the "Knighthood" card is an unlockable available later on.

So we have:

1.   Characters built from a selection of non-numeric traits negative, netural and positive. I suggest that they can be considered cards and could in fact be drawn randomly to assemble a coherent background.  Perhaps some limited 'discards' and new draws would be allowed, but creativity would be sparked by having to make do. 

As characters advance, perhaps they could add new cards or even drop existing cards (losing allies, traits, new enemies,etc). 

Rewards for good play could be additional draws from a loaded deck of positive traits.  Actions in game could cause the acquisition of appropriate cards as well ("Old Pegleg", "Kings' Ear", "Unsavoury Reputation",etc).  Perhaps even such things as damage ("Only a flesh wound!!","Not dead Yet!","Pushing Up Daisies") could be temporarily place in one's hand.

Over time, character power could be increased through selective pressure removing negative traits and aquiring positive traits should the PCs choose to do so, or perhaps certain cards can only come into play at greater levels. Eg. "Fear my Army" being 'unlocked' only after other traits have been acquired.

Do you see PCs advancing from low level to high level adventures, or perhaps Lord of the Rings style, where the PCs are involved in world-shaking plots at the onset?  I'm thinking jumping straight in without working through the mandatory '

Forgive me if this is already old hat - my experience with multiple game systems likely is somewhat less broad then others here.

Questions:

How are opposed actions resolved in such a system?  How would "Fear My Might" stack up against "Is a Troll"?  Obviously in crunchy systems the comparison is easy, but without some point of reference it would be difficult.  Perhaps Moons Thematic batteries could answer this - we would need some numbers to back it up though.  I am interested in how you would handle opposed actions, especially when the situation is not clear.

And while cards I think are good for building the character, using them for combat resolution or other opposed actions may be a little much and I am not advocating it heavily.  I did put together a simple RPG about 20 years ago that used cards instead of dice (everything but that aspect is wholly forgettable..)


"not for knowing an obscure rule combo, or knowing which attribute should be maxed out for combat."

That is one of the reasons I don't consider D&D (any edition) perfect, far from it.  I can't get excited about someone figuring out how to make 7 attacks/round at first level or what not. Maybe as a teen, but not now.

Again, these are simply ideas, not anything I'm married to.  Fire away, but use real arguments, not 'thats silly' because THAT is being silly

[MoonHunter]

Okay... so before I address some points made above, we should make sure we are all talking the same game. 

1) I think all of us are edging towards a non battlemat, non miniature influenced game. 

2) We are currently aiming for generic fantasy.  I could go with that. I would propose a universal game so you can do anything with it, but we will start with fantasy and expand out.
2a) Related to this, I would stick to a point buy or direct selection system, rather than have any random elements.  One, it allows for better crafting of characters. Two, players cheat or fudge on random rolls anyways, so why have random elements. Lastly, random systems are really good at delivering characters you don’t want to play.  So lets us aim for a point buy or direct selection system.

3) I think to keep it in the comfort zone of all involved, we should keep it more towards the GM narative control, rather than player control.  Yes this is a spectrum, 20 being the traditional D&D, 1 being Universalis for example.  Most games where players can point buy (thus builiding aspects of the world with their flaws and gifts), still run around 13-16.  House of the Blooded, 6.  Fate, usually is run around 8-10.  Most games with drama points systems still run around 10-11.   So I would think we aim for the 11-14 range.

I would aim for a moderate to light crunch. So rather than having to detail out everything, we can define everything into categories (showing how they are used/ resolved).   That way "traits" of a given type can have a general resolution track, that can be spun by the actual trait and the use of a drama point system.

If we are not stealing compells, invokes, and fate points, which I am not inclined to do, we need a balancing factor, especially if we are aiming towards a selection and . 

I am all for a drama point system.  Been using it in one form or another since 1980.  Drama point system should give you the basics of rerolls, but we can allow additions to reality (minor scene setting), rather than redefining reality. Again, see the continuum above.

Dark Dragon proposed no attributes, so no innate edge in an aspect.   That would leave us with skillabilities, possibly augmented with gifts and flaws.  That works for me.  It does mean there will have to be baseline values for various aspects.

Now DD said flaws do not balance they add.  Bogus.  If they are not a flaw, then they are not limiting your character enough.. not being used enough...   Flaw sets, as well as gifts, define the way you can do things.  They should provide focus for the game, defining what you character can and can't do, and penalizing you in advancement (or lack of drama points) if you don't follow through with them.  (We are in violent agreement in some of these bits, just different view on them). 

Flaws add to play.  Games with flaws (and gifts) alll for more interesting play, like characters in novels with flaws are more interesting.  Anyone can conquer the world with Superman, can you do it with a blind, deaf, mute parapalegic? 

That said, they do not add to characters. Otherwise, you will get people taking odd traits that they can "edge" all the time.  Oh sure, overconfident is flaw, yet I can going to use it every time to ring out every edge for "going for it". 

Risus also taught us that flaws as pro traits can be totally a rip.

Roleplaying a flaw is a requirement.  Roleplaying is a requirement. If you aren't roleplaying every aspect of your character, then you should be penalized. 

Now about DD's view about backgrounds. 
I think you missed the point completely.   I want the character's culture to define everyman skills and define certain abilities that they would have.  Otherwise a Frenchman is exactly the same as a Scotsman.   
    I want a character's culture to have an impact upon them.
    I want a character's family to have an impact upon them.
   I want the character's childhood to have an impact.
   I want the character's early apprenticeship/ training to impact them.
   I want every cycle of the character's life impact them.  So if they have had 3 cycles post their apprenticeship, they can have a war impact them, they can have a relationship impact then, jobs impact them.. and so on. 

   I want their background (and their response to it) to provide a foundation for the character.  So rather than a random selection of points, I want them built up by their history. (You should like that DD, you have played fate/fudge).   So no longer will you have to explain, where that 14- slight of hand came from that you plugged onto the character.  Your character’s history helps you define what you choose.

As for you bagging on Gift of Strength, it is a generic simple category.  We could count it as a feat or a trait or a gift… It was an example.  Sure you can get more descriptive, but if the trait relates to Strength and only has one trait/ level associated with it.. it is just as strong.  I could have Kryptonian Strength as a trait and it would still only count as one trait for resolution, even though Kryptonian strength should allow me to move mountains.  Troll Strength, Iron Muscles, Gift of the North, or what ever, it is still a single rank towards strength.   We are in violent agreement here.

About Cards for resolution.  It has worked (Castle Falkenstein and Lace and Steel) and failed epically (Marvel Super Heroes III, Torg (well mixed result)and a couple of others).  Using them as dice replacements is just another random number generator, eh? Okay.  Using them and their colors/ suits, adding depth to resolution, yes.  Using them to randomly give you experience advantages (or flaws) that had nothing to do with your adventures up to this point (So we have been out in the wilderness, getting orcs for a local lord and Now I have the King’s ear?.. nope).
 
Now a “card” defining your ability, much the way Savage World writes one word/ phrase and it means your character has this paragraph of rules stuff; that has merit, but it comes back to the degree of crunch and how defined things have to be.  (Gurps is my ax to grind about this.  GURPs has all these pieces to get, you can only have what is defined in the books. Hero went with a more generic approach with more width per skill. While it has defined abilities, it is not as nearly as finely graded as GURPs ).  I like general categories that you can then spin with a trait, redefining it better for the setting and your character.

Also, do people not know that Knighthood is not a job, it is a social position?  So you can be a Rank one Fighter, and be a Knight, or a Mercenary, or a Squire.    A knight background would unlock heraldry, riding, and some of that. Mercenary would unlock up languages, scrounging, and survival. Squire, much the same as Knight.   Knight is a social position, not a class/  Archetype you earn and the get all these abilities.   You are who you are, then you might qualify to be a knight.  (Knights tend to have the certain equipment because with the background came a degree of wealth that let them buy the “state of the art” equipment.)

[MoonHunter]

So Skillabilities, without attributes.  This is workable.

And with the fantasy in mind.....

Athletic  (Jumping, climbing, lifting)
Awareness (perception)
Craft - the making of things
Deceptive (Sneak, Hide, Lie)
Landscraft (Hunting, tracking, survival for a given land type).
Lore (All Knowledges)
Mystic (All Magics and such)
Voice (All things communication, singing, conversation, etc)
Warfare (All things combative)

Most people will be Level 2.  Buy down a level for points, buy up a couple of levels if you need then

Specialties would be traits that describe what you do best, and possibly special things (stunts) you can do in the area.   

Thoughts anyone?

[Strolen]

cough

[valadaar]

One approach to the background building your character is illustrated by a game supplement I have (but can't find) that builds a characters background through random roles from childhood to adulthood, adding perks, stat and skill mods, special conditions, etc, as you go.

I'd lean more towards more illustrative 'cards' then the descriptions below.  Eg. Barbarian Culture, Gladiator would be cards that would count towards Athletic endeavors.

I think the beauty of this is that you omit attributes entirely and can apply the cards as your creativity and your GM would allow.  Gladiator card could provide bonuses for languages, foreign culture, showmanship, acting, weapon maintenance, etc.  Virtually any other card which capture a culture or career would bring knowlege and attributes appropriate for that field.

When testing an ability, you would present various 'cards' that you deemed appropriate to the task, total their 'Rank' and the GM could use this number to determine probability of success?  GM could pull cards from your deck that served to diminish your chances for success (e.g. Barbarian Culture vs Literacy)

More thoughts for the fire.

[MoonHunter]

Not my fault 10 months went by.  I just wasn't going to talk to my self in a thread. Again.

Val wants a lifepath system, something similar to any of the R. Talsorian games (Interlock ones) or something like Burning Wheels paths. 

I would go with the various elements like a Burning Wheel system. 

Street Urchin give me options to go towards... Runner (which leads into the thieves guild paths, or gang/bandit paths (which then lead into merc/solider paths) or begger or guild apprentice or apprentice mage (if you have the prerequiste occult background). 

Farmer leads towards  Farmer, Militia, or Village Crafter pathways. 

The advantage of these systems is that they create your history as you make the character and your skills are based immediately on what you are doing.  Each path takes up "time".  so you start at a young age and age as you go. 

The disadvantage of said system is writing up all 100-200 paths. And unless your GM lets you make new ones, you might not always be able to find what you are looking for. (The more paths written, the less likely that will happen.)