StarGazer: Alpha test

[HMS Sophia]

Hello all.
As with so many of us, I'm currently writing my own RPG from scratch.
Anyway, it's in pretty decent state, and it's coming to the point that I need some people to Alpha test this. What I'm looking for is a group of players of any size to go through the book, a chapter at a time, and test it into the ground. Find the weaknesses, the bad explanations and the ideas that should never have been implemented. Eventually, once we're deep enough into it, we can move into a game and see how the game works 'in service' as it were.
The game: StarGazer is a science fiction role playing game, built around a d10 system. The setting is several centuries hence, with starships both private and commercial plying the space lanes. Humanity has spread to the stars thanks to a system of gates which extend the capabilities of FTL drives immensely. It takes it's cues from hard science, but in some places it drops realism in favour of accessibility and ease of use.
I'm looking to recruit any number of Alpha testers to work with me, and to push this project towards a finished standard.
Please comment if you're interested or have any questions.

[Morcleon]

*posts interest* Do you have a .pdf or anything that you can link to us? ^_^

...*resists urge to make comments about the Singularity* >.>

[Eirala]

Well, you probably already know that but i am interested

[HMS Sophia]

*posts interest* Do you have a .pdf or anything that you can link to us? ^_^

Ill be passing out PDF's on a chapter by chapter basis once I have a group of testers together.
I'm aiming to publish someday, so I hope you can understand why it's not an open release of everything I have...

[Morcleon]

Ill be passing out PDF's on a chapter by chapter basis once I have a group of testers together.
I'm aiming to publish someday, so I hope you can understand why it's not an open release of everything I have...

Ah, that makes sense.

On the setting, is it premade (similar to Faerun and Eberron), or is it more generic (beyond the "humanity in the stars several centuries hence" bit)?

[Eldest]

Suprise, I'm interested.

[HMS Sophia]

Ah, that makes sense.

On the setting, is it premade (similar to Faerun and Eberron), or is it more generic (beyond the "humanity in the stars several centuries hence" bit)?

It has a well defined setting, and it'll all be written down in one place by the time we reach that point :)
It's not designed to be generic, but it wouldn't be overly hard to convert the system to other things. Character generation is quite broad.

[TrueJordan]

Sounds good. Would you want my email, or is everything done through this site?

[HMS Sophia]

Sounds good. Would you want my email, or is everything done through this site?

What I'm thinking is if you do any commentary, suggested edits, creations and problems found in this thread, but I'll distribute via email.
Speaking of which, here's the company address. Drop us a line and I'll start distributing soon. [email protected]

[Partysan]

In the end I'm probably too curious not to join <.<

[Jormengand]

In the end I'm probably too curious not to join <.<

Same. Not sure I'll survive through it all, in any sense of the word, but I can at least give it a try.

[HMS Sophia]

First batch of files distributed. Can't wait to hear from you.

[Jormengand]

This is going to sound like a furious rant, because I only pointed out the bad bits. Means the rest's okay, though!

- Random everything is silly. Character creation systems should not be random - it's possible that your 33-year-old ends up with -1/-1/-1/-1/-0/-0 while your ally's ends up with 20/20/20/20/20/19 at character generation.
- Random everything makes building a character to do things you want to do impossible.
- The events grant honestly weird bonuses. You give decent fluff explanations for them, but I see a lot of them getting ignored if they're not the character's shtick.
- Applying first aid is a really bad example of something that takes one minute. As a first aider, I can tell you that it can take anything from about two minutes (Minor bleeding) to until an ambulance turns up or you literally cannot continue (CPR). Similarly, if it takes you three seconds to actually shoot a gun, you're doing something wrong, but if you can make safe, load, ready and fire a gun in that time you're a god in human form.
- The idea that you can make a near-impossible shot as an easy check by staring your target down for ten minutes, or a trivial check which I, being as I am a not-very-good shooter, practically cannot fail by staring them down for an hour is absurd.
- Having "Guns" as a thing you either have a rank in or you don't is odd, because I know how to fire a rifle and wouldn't have a clue how to use a pistol, and certainly not a friggin grenade launcher. It would make a lot more sense if you just made all ranks work the same way, rather than making the first better. The same goes for Animals - I can ride a horse, albeit not very well, but that doesn't mean I have any clue how to train one or to farm. Artistry: I've trained in writing, does that mean I'm automatically a passable sculptor? If I can cook, I can make swords now?
- If you're of at least average intelligence you can't accidentally burn a meal. Ever.
- It's easier to hit someone in a furious melee than to shoot them.
- Difficulty 12 doesn't even exist in the normal course of events. Should that read 14?
- I can't fail to perform a play under your system. I can't act in reality.
- Grenades and bows? Okay, this deserves to be listed separately from the whole cook/make swords thing, because grenades and bows?
- I can't fail to research a complex problem.
- I can't fail to hack into an unprotected mainframe.
- It's no harder to fire a weapon in 0G than out of it.

[HMS Sophia]

This is going to sound like a furious rant, because I only pointed out the bad bits. Means the rest's okay, though!

- Random everything is silly. Character creation systems should not be random - it's possible that your 33-year-old ends up with -1/-1/-1/-1/-0/-0 while your ally's ends up with 20/20/20/20/20/19 at character generation.

True. Odds are very low though.

- Random everything makes building a character to do things you want to do impossible.

It's still not random everything. Exactly two things are random. (By the way, for everyone. Age was supposed to be choice or roll. Realised I hadn't mentioned. Whoops.)

- The events grant honestly weird bonuses. You give decent fluff explanations for them, but I see a lot of them getting ignored if they're not the character's shtick.

Yup. They're not meant to be hugely useful. But hey, who knows when a rank in survival is gonna save that Diplomats life.

- Applying first aid is a really bad example of something that takes one minute. As a first aider, I can tell you that it can take anything from about two minutes (Minor bleeding) to until an ambulance turns up or you literally cannot continue (CPR). Similarly, if it takes you three seconds to actually shoot a gun, you're doing something wrong, but if you can make safe, load, ready and fire a gun in that time you're a god in human form.

Your first point is a fair one. I'll change that. Your second point is nitpicky. To fire a weapon? Sure, a split second. To bring to bear and fire a weapon in your hands? Three seconds seems no bad thing.

- The idea that you can make a near-impossible shot as an easy check by staring your target down for ten minutes, or a trivial check which I, being as I am a not-very-good shooter, practically cannot fail by staring them down for an hour is absurd.

Your example is fallacious. I will add an upper limit to what is possible though.

- Having "Guns" as a thing you either have a rank in or you don't is odd, because I know how to fire a rifle and wouldn't have a clue how to use a pistol, and certainly not a friggin grenade launcher. It would make a lot more sense if you just made all ranks work the same way, rather than making the first better. The same goes for Animals - I can ride a horse, albeit not very well, but that doesn't mean I have any clue how to train one or to farm. Artistry: I've trained in writing, does that mean I'm automatically a passable sculptor? If I can cook, I can make swords now?

I know what you mean. Grouped skills are a bit weird, and do lead to the odd situation you point out below of Grenades and Bows!. But honestly, can you think of a better way without heading into the territory of 80 or so different skills? The most you can have as a general rank is 1, that's 1d10+ your attribute in anything you've not put extra ranks to me. That's not even passable, it's amateurish. And I bet I could have a crack at using a grenade launcher amateurishly

- If you're of at least average intelligence you can't accidentally burn a meal. Ever.

If your GM is of at least average intelligence, why are they making you roll a skill test to cook meals?

- It's easier to hit someone in a furious melee than to shoot them.
- Difficulty 12 doesn't even exist in the normal course of events. Should that read 14?

Grouped these. Are you saying it's easier to stab someone than shoot them? Or that it shouldn't be? If the second, the 12 in the melee example is a leftover from an earlier system build.

- I can't fail to perform a play under your system. I can't act in reality.

Just because you can perform doesn't make you good.

- Grenades and bows? Okay, this deserves to be listed separately from the whole cook/make swords thing, because grenades and bows?

See above

- I can't fail to research a complex problem.

If your intelligence is 18, and have a rank in science, sure you can't. High intelligence though. Near the limits of human capability. I'm impressed.

- I can't fail to hack into an unprotected mainframe.

See above, replace science with technical.

- It's no harder to fire a weapon in 0G than out of it.

Fire, no, fire safely and without blowing yourself away (the point of the Zero-G combat specialisation), yes.

[Jormengand]

True. Odds are very low though.

Still potential to be utterly screwed over at char-gen. Contrast the probability of rolling nothing but 3s for 4d6b3 in D&D, which is
2*10^-19 rather than 1*10^-12. So basically make it less swingy I guess?

It's still not random everything. Exactly two things are random. (By the way, for everyone. Age was supposed to be choice or roll. Realised I hadn't mentioned. Whoops.)

It's still random too much.

Yup. They're not meant to be hugely useful. But hey, who knows when a rank in survival is gonna save that Diplomats life.

I guess I don't like the idea of something randomly determined at character creation which could either be incredibly useful or absolutely useless.

Your first point is a fair one. I'll change that. Your second point is nitpicky. To fire a weapon? Sure, a split second. To bring to bear and fire a weapon in your hands? Three seconds seems no bad thing.

I guess.

Your example is fallacious. I will add an upper limit to what is possible though.

How's it fallacious? You can quite literally do just that as the system's written.

I know what you mean. Grouped skills are a bit weird, and do lead to the odd situation you point out below of Grenades and Bows!. But honestly, can you think of a better way without heading into the territory of 80 or so different skills? The most you can have as a general rank is 1, that's 1d10+ your attribute in anything you've not put extra ranks to me. That's not even passable, it's amateurish. And I bet I could have a crack at using a grenade launcher amateurishly

The average person with "Amateurish" ability with a gun will hit another person three quarters of the time (Well, either 7/10 or 4/5 of the time). That seems odd.

If your GM is of at least average intelligence, why are they making you roll a skill test to cook meals?

You're the one who gave it as an example of a skill check you might make!

Grouped these. Are you saying it's easier to stab someone than shoot them? Or that it shouldn't be? If the second, the 12 in the melee example is a leftover from an earlier system build.

The second.

Just because you can perform doesn't make you good.

"Success" implies that you actually did it well, though...

If your intelligence is 18, and have a rank in science, sure you can't. High intelligence though. Near the limits of human capability. I'm impressed.

See above, replace science with technical.

I'm near or in the top percentage point of intelligence for my age, giving me an intelligence of 19-20 (note that 16-year-olds don't lose stat points for their age) but that doesn't mean that with my "Amateurish" ability in computing and the sciences (I should hope it's a little better than amateurish at that; I hope to pass an exam in it) I can research a complex problem or hack into a computer mainframe, and certainly not that I can never fail to.

Nor does it mean that someone who spends a little longer trying to do so, with only a modicum of training and below-average intelligence can hack a computer mainframe successfully over half the time.

Fire, no, fire safely and without blowing yourself away (the point of the Zero-G combat specialisation), yes.

So... what, you need to make two skill checks? It doesn't make that quite clear.

[HMS Sophia]

Still potential to be utterly screwed over at char-gen. Contrast the probability of rolling nothing but 3s for 4d6b3 in D&D, which is
2*10^-19 rather than 1*10^-12. So basically make it less swingy I guess?

I don't think it needs significant changes for a 1 in 1000,000,000,000 chance. Or two with the upper limit as well. Sure, it can happen. If that person is that unfortunate as to roll all 2's, I can only hope their GM is nice. But then equally, in D&D I could roll a character with all 3's. Traveller, a character with all 2's (and that's off 2d6).

It's still random too much.

I disagree.

I guess I don't like the idea of something randomly determined at character creation which could either be incredibly useful or absolutely useless.

In other games, do you only ever put points into skills that are definitely absolutely going to be useful? Or do you build characters that are rounded and may have some odd skills.
As for incredibly useful v useless, there's a reason not one archetype can randomly gain a Primary skill, only secondary or non-archetypal.

How's it fallacious? You can quite literally do just that as the system's written.

I'd like to see someone wait an hour while you line up that shot...
Equally, there's now a hard limit.

The average person with "Amateurish" ability with a gun will hit another person three quarters of the time (Well, either 7/10 or 4/5 of the time). That seems odd.

It certainly does. Perhaps the difficulties need pumping a little.

You're the one who gave it as an example of a skill check you might make!

It's a fair point But equally, I don't remember the last time I burnt a meal, because I follow instructions. Not to the point that would count as a failed skill check, anyway.

The second.

Fixed.

"Success" implies that you actually did it well, though...

Success simply implies you succeeded. It is no measure of the quality of your performance. I have no mechanic for such (and have no intention of using one), but I imagine that in such an opinion driven circle as theatrical performance, the GM may well take the amount by which the character succeeded as an indicator of quality. Or they might not.

I'm near or in the top percentage point of intelligence for my age, giving me an intelligence of 19-20 (note that 16-year-olds don't lose stat points for their age) but that doesn't mean that with my "Amateurish" ability in computing and the sciences (I should hope it's a little better than amateurish at that; I hope to pass an exam in it) I can research a complex problem or hack into a computer mainframe, and certainly not that I can never fail to.

Again, we're running into the problem of general skills, but as said: If you can come up with a better system for condensing the 80-odd options given by the system, I'm all ears. Not to be overly derivative, but plenty of systems have succeeded with a similar concept.

Nor does it mean that someone who spends a little longer trying to do so, with only a modicum of training and below-average intelligence can hack a computer mainframe successfully over half the time.

I can probably say this about most systems though. Equally, I bet that I, with a book of basic concepts and some time, could have a damn good crack at this sort of thing.
And thirdly... sure, I'm not going to be able to model person/skill interactions perfectly. So shoot me. It'll only take you three seconds.

So... what, you need to make two skill checks? It doesn't make that quite clear.

"This skill should be used for most physical tests when they are taken in Zero-G, even if another (such as athletics) would normally be used."
Oh, I believe it does.

[Jormengand]

I don't think it needs significant changes for a 1 in 1000,000,000,000 chance. Or two with the upper limit as well. Sure, it can happen. If that person is that unfortunate as to roll all 2's, I can only hope their GM is nice. But then equally, in D&D I could roll a character with all 3's. Traveller, a character with all 2's (and that's off 2d6).

The point is that it's still really swingy and you're still pretty likely to roll a significantly worse character than someone else's.

I disagree.

That's your prerogative.

In other games, do you only ever put points into skills that are definitely absolutely going to be useful? Or do you build characters that are rounded and may have some odd skills.
As for incredibly useful v useless, there's a reason not one archetype can randomly gain a Primary skill, only secondary or non-archetypal.

My point is that I'd feel cheated if someone passed a check I didn't because they'd randomly been assigned skill ranks in it, rather than at least a conscious decision to make their character do that.

I'd like to see someone wait an hour while you line up that shot...
Equally, there's now a hard limit.

There are things which take hours to do. *Shrug.* Doesn't really matter now.

It's a fair point But equally, I don't remember the last time I burnt a meal, because I follow instructions. Not to the point that would count as a failed skill check, anyway.

I remember burning a meal, largely due to forgetting about it. >.>

Success simply implies you succeeded. It is no measure of the quality of your performance. I have no mechanic for such (and have no intention of using one), but I imagine that in such an opinion driven circle as theatrical performance, the GM may well take the amount by which the character succeeded as an indicator of quality. Or they might not.

That makes the system require far too much rule 0 for my liking.

Again, we're running into the problem of general skills, but as said: If you can come up with a better system for condensing the 80-odd options given by the system, I'm all ears. Not to be overly derivative, but plenty of systems have succeeded with a similar concept.

Allow people to take all skill ranks the way they would normally take ranks after the first in a skill. I mean, your character shouldn't need any ranks in most skills (You should only need ranks in one or two of the guns skills, one of the crafts, and so forth) so it doesn't matter that there are a lot of them.

I can probably say this about most systems though. Equally, I bet that I, with a book of basic concepts and some time, could have a damn good crack at this sort of thing.
And thirdly... sure, I'm not going to be able to model person/skill interactions perfectly. So shoot me. It'll only take you three seconds.

Hang on a minute, I need to line up my shot.

"This skill should be used for most physical tests when they are taken in Zero-G, even if another (such as athletics) would normally be used."
Oh, I believe it does.

That implies that I only have to take the 0G check, not that I have to make a 0G and a guns check.

[HMS Sophia]

The point is that it's still really swingy and you're still pretty likely to roll a significantly worse character than someone else's.

True. Though because of the way statistics work, you're more likely to all roll generally average characters, with some high and some low attributes. Sure, someone might end up an ubermensch. Someone might be a downtrodden unfortunate. Not everyone is created equal. This happens in any game, and it's markedly more likely to happen in some (see the previously mentioned Traveller. That system is... ouch.)

My point is that I'd feel cheated if someone passed a check I didn't because they'd randomly been assigned skill ranks in it, rather than at least a conscious decision to make their character do that.

Would you feel cheated if you had the same skills, but they rolled very well, and you rolled very poorly. It's essentially the same level of random, save that one is a permanent (but relatively minor) effect, while the other applies only to a temporary roll.

There are things which take hours to do. *Shrug.* Doesn't really matter now.

There still are. I've limited the amount of additional time you can take, or rather, the amount by which you can affect the difficulty.

That makes the system require far too much rule 0 for my liking.

It's a bad example. But one thing that is coming up again and again is that the difficulties definitely need boosting. This will happen.

Allow people to take all skill ranks the way they would normally take ranks after the first in a skill. I mean, your character shouldn't need any ranks in most skills (You should only need ranks in one or two of the guns skills, one of the crafts, and so forth) so it doesn't matter that there are a lot of them.

Eh... I am hesitant of this. I (personally, me, real life) have a working knowledge of guns, mainly thanks to a multitude of hourse of range shooting. Lets say I have rank 1 in rifles. Now, I could probably have a crack at most other weapons in the guns category. Certainly the larger, rifleish, ones. And I could easily figure out what to do with a handgun.
Difficulties will be bumped as well.

That implies that I only have to take the 0G check, not that I have to make a 0G and a guns check.

Got it in one. The Zero-G check replaces the skill check. You could be stunning with guns, but only have a rank or so in zero-g combat? Well, then you're not that good at compensating for recoil, target movement and such in zero-g. It's a vastly different environment to ones with gravity. Not least because you drift.

[Jormengand]

True. Though because of the way statistics work, you're more likely to all roll generally average characters, with some high and some low attributes. Sure, someone might end up an ubermensch. Someone might be a downtrodden unfortunate. Not everyone is created equal. This happens in any game, and it's markedly more likely to happen in some (see the previously mentioned Traveller. That system is... ouch.)

In saying that that system is, as you so eloquently put it, "Ouch," you're kinda admitting that it's a bad thing.

This bears saying: just because another system does something doesn't mean it's good.

Would you feel cheated if you had the same skills, but they rolled very well, and you rolled very poorly. It's essentially the same level of random, save that one is a permanent (but relatively minor) effect, while the other applies only to a temporary roll.

Exactly: one is permanent. That means that at character creation, a single bad roll can screw me over every single time I try to walk through a desert, or find water, or hunt...

Eh... I am hesitant of this. I (personally, me, real life) have a working knowledge of guns, mainly thanks to a multitude of hourse of range shooting. Lets say I have rank 1 in rifles. Now, I could probably have a crack at most other weapons in the guns category. Certainly the larger, rifleish, ones. And I could easily figure out what to do with a handgun.
Difficulties will be bumped as well.

See, I have to disagree with that one. With guns I can just about activate my willing suspension of disbelief, but Artistry, Craft, Engineering, Heavy Weapons, Medical (Genetics? I mean, I definitely know first aid, but not surgery or psychiatry), Melee, Perform, Pilot (I should also point out that "Boats" is an insanely wide category - I can sail, but I probably couldn't drive a big boat), Ranged weapons (Grenades and bows? ), Starship (I feel starship repair coming under engineering would fix that one), Survival (Lock picking in with forgery and wilderness survival?) and Technical all stretch belief a bit too far.

Got it in one. The Zero-G check replaces the skill check. You could be stunning with guns, but only have a rank or so in zero-g combat? Well, then you're not that good at compensating for recoil, target movement and such in zero-g. It's a vastly different environment to ones with gravity. Not least because you drift.

But what if it's the other way round? If you have massively many ranks in 0G and none whatsoever in guns, that means that you are better at shooting in 0G than on Earth. Clearly, you should need a 0G check and a guns check to do that.

[Rephath]

Sophia, debating criticism is a bad idea. That said, skills that have broad application are a good thing, despite Jormengand's statements to the contrary. Let people be better at some aspects than others if they choose to specialize.

[Jormengand]

That said, skills that have broad application are a good thing

But grenades and bows???

It might be an idea to make it cheaper to buy ranks in a sub-skill if you have ranks in other sub-skills of the same skill, but the idea that someone who can shoot a bow logically must be able to throw grenades is silly.

And a bit suspect, I think...

[Rephath]

Grenades and bows go well together. I often do that in my systems. Someone who trains with more primitive or short-ranged combat styles will have throwing weapons, bows, and other similar weapons. Logically grenades would go in with that. More advanced armies would be using grenade launchers and so might not be good with thrown grenades..

[HMS Sophia]

Something I'd like people's opinions for, that I already know Jor's thoughts on. The events list was orignally twice the length for each archetype. It included possibilities for all 6 secondary skills, both positive and negative modifiers to starting money (good and bad luck) and a final negative character event, usually involving some sort of wound acquired or some such. So 2/10 events were bad, 8/10 were good, and there was much more range of events.
How would people feel about that being re-integrated?

[Morcleon]

Something I'd like people's opinions for, that I already know Jor's thoughts on. The events list was orignally twice the length for each archetype. It included possibilities for all 6 secondary skills, both positive and negative modifiers to starting money (good and bad luck) and a final negative character event, usually involving some sort of wound acquired or some such. So 2/10 events were bad, 8/10 were good, and there was much more range of events.
How would people feel about that being re-integrated?

Mm... I feel that having that level of randomness at character creation is probably a bad thing. If negative events are going to be a thing, maybe selecting one gives you more points to spend toward something else to balance out the character from a mechanics standpoint.

My main dislike of randomness at character creation means that you can't create the type of character you want. If you have background things like events rolled, if you wanted something else, you couldn't have taken it.

I'll have a more in-depth critique of the .pdf itself after a while. I still need to read it closely.

[Partysan]

Regarding the randomness in character creation, I'd say there are three ways to go for you:

1. Commit to old school design: For this option keep rolling for abilities, expand the table for events and maybe make people roll several times on several tables to create a timeline. In the rules text, explicitly state that character creation is supposed to be random and that the player's job is to fill the character they're handed with life. Keep lethality high and possibly include a legacy system so a character who dies can give some of their successes to their successor, making players feel better about rotating characters with some regularity.

2. Go for a choice-based character creation: As the polar opposite, use point buy for abilities, skills and qualities and have the events be nothing but fluff suggestions for how the characters attain their training. Encourage thoughtful character building and give ample worldbuilding fluff to ground it in.

3. Synthesize the two by mechanically evening out the effects of randomness: If you want to use some randomness without fully going oldschool and possibly losing players over it, create a resource to balance out random inequalities. To give an example, systems that use some kind of fate points/courage points/whatever points mechanic tend to give humans more of them than other races who have distinctive advantages by nature, giving weaker characters more possibilities to influence the story at chosen moments. Such a mechanic can be used to even out bad events or low ability scores. Another possibility would be giving out more qualities to characters under a certain ability score threshold. These are just examples, but you see where I'm going: keep the randomness in both positive and negative directions, but balance it with a metaresource to keep players equal even while characters aren't.

[HMS Sophia]

Dammit, I wrote this once and my computer killed it...

Write, based on Partysan's above post, I've had an idea for a re-write of the char gen system.
Right... Charcters would have a choice of 4 (some less with young characters, maybe up to 5 with older characters?) categories, basically significant life modifiers. Right now I'm thinking Birth world, background (family), Education and Career. These would give a Primary skill and 1-2 secondary skills. Skill points would be spent as currently, with the number determined by age. Random events would be removed. Qualities would remain as is.
Attributes can be rolled or point bought.

Thoughts? Gives an idea of the characters life, plenty of freedom to develop them, and has scope for enlargement. And randomisation too...

Additional: Who has skype? We could make a group thread.

[Jormengand]

As requested, posting character write up:

Anna, the Scientist
Age: 16
Ale 10 Con 7 Dex 10 Int 20 Str 8 Wil 10
HP 17 Enc 23 Ini 2d10+10
Educated (Linguistics and Philosophy), Natural Athlete (Dexterity and Endurance)
Event: 6 (Artistry)
Skill ranks (Cost):
Sciences (2), Physical sciences 3 (3)
Knowledge (2), Linguistics 1 (1), Philosophy 1 (1)
Medical (2), First aid 2 (2)
Technical (2), Computer programming (1)
Skill dice:
Artistry 1
Athletics (Dexterity) 1
Athletics (Endurance) 1
Knowledge (Linguistics) 3
Knowledge (Phliosophy) 3
Knowledge 1
Medical (First aid) 3
Medical 1
Sciences (Physical Sciences) 4
Sciences 1
Technical (Computer programming) 2
Technical 1