Monte Cooks First Legends and Lore

[Bedrockgames]

Why is "chance to contribute" automatically meaning "All contributions are equal"? The dumb fighter can try to contribute in the investigation in 4e because his base abilities might still allow him to stay in the game. But, at no point is he going to be as effective as Brighty McSmartypants the Bard, simply because the fighter's abilities aren't as good as the Bard's.

I have no issue with everyone having a chance to contribute, if that is what you want in your game. If you prefer everyone having a chance to succeed in 3E you simply open it up to 20s being auto successes on skill checks (now everyone has at least a 5% chance of success on any skill). But it sounds like people want equally meaningful contributions to be available in all situations. Though maybe I am misunderstanding what people are saying.

The problem comes when the rules say, "Sorry Jim, you just aren't tall enough for this ride, no matter what". And, worse, it might tell Jim that despite Jim not making any choices at all - a rogue facing a non-sneakable opponent for example. Or anyone else trying to find a DC 21+ trap in 3e. They simply cannot do it, nor can they contribute in the slightest.

It depends, there are tasks that will be impossible for some unskilled people to achieve. All that means is you either find someone in your group who has the skill to do it, or you find another way around the problem. If a gorge is too wide for anyone to jump, you go another way.

Personally I have no problem with this. The GM sets the DCs here. As a player I have no problem with there being traps only the master rogue can disarm. And I have no problem with their being walls only a master assassin can scale. It isn't going to bother me if my fighter has to wait out that one tiny moment while the rogue shines.

Also just because the rogue is the goto guy in this instance, it doesn't mean I can't make a contribution. I just can't scale the wall or disarm the trap.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If the adventure shifts to a focus on investigation, doesn't it make sense that when the party is analyzing clues, that is something he wouldn't contribute to?

For me, part of the fun of the game is when an unoptimized character has to do something to contribute.

For instance, that investigation? Like a combat, the "dumb barbarian's" turn comes up, and he has to do something to try and contribute to success, or else he's got an automatic failure. His presence in the party matters, for good or ill (and it's likely to be for ill). This encourages a balanced party setup, so that however horrible that barbarian is, the rest of the party needs to be good enough to compensate. Because occasionally, investigation is something the party will have to do (just like combat, or social interaction, or exploration). Giving the barbarian space in which to fall flat on his face gives the Bard's player or the Rogue's player a chance to appreciate his character's skill in that situation -- it gives them a chance to shine. It's also one of those "fun to fail" situations - a dumb barbarian stumbling over himself in an investigation is highly entertaining, even if he fails miserably. It can be EVEN MORE FUN if he succeeds unexpectedly!

It's certainly a lot more fun than if the barbarian's player goes and plays Xbox for half an hour while the rest of the party does an investigation.

There's a difference in playstyle, too, where some players don't mind watching others go about their thing. Others tune out and say, "Call me when its over." You can't force those latter players to pay attention, and you can't just say "THEY ARE HORRIBLE PEOPLE!" You should engage those players. They have every reason to expect that a game will be something that they can play, rather than something they can spectate at for half an hour. They can watch TV and be a spectator.

 

[JamesonCourage]

My players make great use of the "aid another" rule in my game. Between this and helping brainstorm, they seem content in terms of both mechanically and intellectually contributing to the game. Would this qualify as meaningful contribution to most people?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just because the dumb barbarian can't find clues or be the diplomat, that doesn't mean he has to sit there and watch. He can use his muscle to intimidate witnesses for example. He may fail at talking the night watchman into feeding leads but he still has other strengths that can matter to the investigation. And even if he finds nothing to contribute he can still participate in the role play.

 

[Hussar]

My players make great use of the "aid another" rule in my game. Between this and helping brainstorm, they seem content in terms of both mechanically and intellectually contributing to the game. Would this qualify as meaningful contribution to most people?

"Helping brainstorm"? Wouldn't this be pretty much entirely out of character? How much is our dumb barbarian going to be adding to any brainstorming session?

I have no real problems with Aid Another, but, again, that should be a choice, not something that I do because it's the only reasonable way I can do anything at all.

Sure, I don't mind the idea of the wall only the assassin can scale. And the trap only the master thief can disarm. That's fine.

Where my problem comes is that, at a certain point in the game, EVERY wall is too hard to scale. EVERY trap can only be disarmed by the master thief (and in that particular example, that comes up at 1st level since only the rogue can find the trap in the first place).

The problem comes when there is simply too much space between top and bottom for characters of the same level. No one has a problem when the 15th level character can do things the 1st level character can't. That's fine. That's part and parcel to the level system.

But, when the mechanics basically tell anyone who isn't highly skilled in X to sit down and watch, that's bad design. By 10th level, the difference between a skilled (and I don't even mean focused, just skilled) 3e character and one who isn't is huge. Anything that is even a moderate challenge to the skilled character is completely beyond the abilities of the unskilled one.

And, again, it's not that the unskilled guy should be able to do everything that the skilled guy can. That's never been the issue. It's that the unskilled guy can't do anything at all. A 50/50 chance to give someone a +2 isn't exactly rocking the house is it?

 

[billd91]

The problem comes when there is simply too much space between top and bottom for characters of the same level. No one has a problem when the 15th level character can do things the 1st level character can't. That's fine. That's part and parcel to the level system.

But, when the mechanics basically tell anyone who isn't highly skilled in X to sit down and watch, that's bad design. By 10th level, the difference between a skilled (and I don't even mean focused, just skilled) 3e character and one who isn't is huge. Anything that is even a moderate challenge to the skilled character is completely beyond the abilities of the unskilled one.

If this is a big problem, 4e isn't much of a fix. In our group, we've got 10th level characters with as many as 16 point differences in skills because of differences in stats, being trained, and a host of other little modifiers all over the place. Granted, that span probably won't get much bigger when in 3.5 it would, but it's a pretty huge difference now and it pretty much throws the idea of participating in certain tasks right out the window.

I think a more ideal solution would be to reduce the span of skill points in general, but that virtually mandates shifting to a smaller die than the d20 so that the modifiers contribute more to outcome than the die roll.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just because the dumb barbarian can't find clues or be the diplomat, that doesn't mean he has to sit there and watch.

As it currently stands, the 4e skill system really encourages that behavior, though. If you're not optimized, you're better off not contributing, since you can just not do anything and not rack up a failure.

He can use his muscle to intimidate witnesses for example.

Well, if he has invested in Intimidate, he is presumably not un-optimized. He WOULD contribute in that situation, and as equally as a bard or rogue might.

He may fail at talking the night watchman into feeding leads but he still has other strengths that can matter to the investigation. And even if he finds nothing to contribute he can still participate in the role play.

I was taking as a starting point your hypothetical stupid barbarian who would sit out an investigation because he had nothing to contribute.

If the hypothetical stupid barbarian DOES have something to contribute, he won't be sitting it out. Everyone would contribute, perhaps even equally.

Which is a problem for some folks in the thread.

Alternately, you could let the barbarian suck, and make his suck-age fun for the entire party to try and overcome, because sometimes, it's fun to suck at something, in order to rock the house at something else. Perhaps in combat, it is the rogue or the bard who sucks. (This type of "balance" would be similar to early-edition balance, with some of the attendant problems: e.g.: A social-heavy campaign rules out the barbarian warrior as an effective character type. That might be OK, though. )

 

[JamesonCourage]

"Helping brainstorm"? Wouldn't this be pretty much entirely out of character? How much is our dumb barbarian going to be adding to any brainstorming session?

Dumb does not equal mute, so I have no idea why that'd be out of character necessarily (it certainly could, but it's not an assumption I'd leap to). Many times I've had PCs over analyze things. Having a big dumb guy go, "hey, couldn't we just break the chain?" after 10 minutes of debating on what to do would be fine for contribution and totally in-character, in my mind.

I have no real problems with Aid Another, but, again, that should be a choice, not something that I do because it's the only reasonable way I can do anything at all.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Isn't Aid Another a choice as it stands now? You can choose to aid another, choose to help brainstorm, or you can choose to do nothing? Are you saying you should have the choice of aid another, do nothing, or help in Method B? And, out of curiosity, what's the way that you can have everyone reasonably have a Method B option at all times? I'm really curious, because if there's another mechanic I can explore for my game, it'd be really cool to hear (totally honest... I don't want this to come off as sarcastic at all).

Sure, I don't mind the idea of the wall only the assassin can scale. And the trap only the master thief can disarm. That's fine.

Where my problem comes is that, at a certain point in the game, EVERY wall is too hard to scale. EVERY trap can only be disarmed by the master thief (and in that particular example, that comes up at 1st level since only the rogue can find the trap in the first place).

Ah, I do agree with this sentiment. It also looks like you weren't advocating for someone always having a Method B option available. Just having a Method B option throughout most of the game. I had this same issue with my game, so I did a slight redesign on skills to address it. Obviously I can relate to what you're saying here, so it makes sense to me.

The problem comes when there is simply too much space between top and bottom for characters of the same level. No one has a problem when the 15th level character can do things the 1st level character can't. That's fine. That's part and parcel to the level system.

But, when the mechanics basically tell anyone who isn't highly skilled in X to sit down and watch, that's bad design.

Doesn't this go against the rogue being the only one who can disarm the trap, which you indicated you were okay with? Are you basically saying it's bad when the mechanics do this constantly as opposed to somewhat? Trying to understand.

By 10th level, the difference between a skilled (and I don't even mean focused, just skilled) 3e character and one who isn't is huge. Anything that is even a moderate challenge to the skilled character is completely beyond the abilities of the unskilled one.

Yep, pretty true. +15 to a skill (13 ranks, +2 mod) means a 10 = 25 (55% chance of success). The untrained guy (+2 mod) means a 20 gets him a 22 (0% chance to hit a 25). This was an issue I had, so I totally agree with you on this.

And, again, it's not that the unskilled guy should be able to do everything that the skilled guy can. That's never been the issue. It's that the unskilled guy can't do anything at all. A 50/50 chance to give someone a +2 isn't exactly rocking the house is it?

No, but he shouldn't be rocking the house, in my eyes. He'll do that later in his area. However, he is meaningfully contributing to the guy who is rocking the house. And that guy will probably help him rock the house later. I don't think that everyone should be able to "rock the house" at all times, or even most times.

As far as the DCs becoming too separated past a certain point, I agree. I fixed it to a point where my group was satisfied with it, but it's something I'd like to see D&D address in the future. So, I'm totally with you on that. As always, play what you like

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, if he has invested in Intimidate, he is presumably not un-optimized.

Ipso facto? Is this another problem with skill systems we should be discussing alongside these others? Are some systems designed such that it is not worth bothering to dabble if one doesn't optimize? Can a system function where dabbling works without having an optimizer so outshine the dabbler that the point is moot? Is the problem in having divorced the mechnicals effects from roleplaying?

 

[I'm A Banana]

In a 3e or 4e style skill system, if you've spent skill points or Skill Training on a particular skill, you're already very likely to be Better Than Normal. 3e has more granularity in this regard than 4e, since it doesn't auto-scale with level, so while you might be Better Than Normal, you still might not be on par with others of your level (as much as you'd be able to show up a 1st-level commoner).

Can a system function where dabbling works without having an optimizer so outshine the dabbler that the point is moot? Is the problem in having divorced the mechnicals effects from roleplaying?

Generally, a dabbler gains in breadth, and a focused character gains in depth. A dabbler will never be able to eclipse a focused character. Unless the dabbler is somehow forced to contribute, the focused character will always outshine them, since only one person needs to contribute, and it should probably be the focused character. The dabbler shines when the focused character is somehow disabled, or when doing something that there is no focused character for (which is rare in a party-focused game like D&D).

In a system where everyone has to contribute, though, a dabbler shows their skill, since the focused character can't do everything always -- even folks who aren't optimized will need to do something, so a dabbler will be able to do a little bit of everything, while our focused character will presumably be able to do one thing very well, and other things not so well.