What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Tony Vargas]

if you really think that skills in 3E/PF are capable of carrying the same heft in play as they do in Classic Traveller (where they are the whole of the PC sheet) then I guess there's no arguing it with you!

I may be thinking more of Traveler as in the 'Characters & Combat' booklet, back in the day, vs /some/ d20 game.

But, no, I'm not impressed by long or open-ended lists of skills, quite the opposite: I think they can undermine play by 'creating incompetence.' (and, for the record, the 3e/PF skill list is too long)

To me it seems obvious that, in 3E/PF, the main way of resolving out-of-combat challenges is not the skill system but the magic system, with the skill system acting as something of a secondary framework.

Remove "out-of-combat" and I'd agree with that sentence. ;P Seriously, though, if you had a build designed to optimize a skill or something, then it could be every bit as effective as magic in it's area of specialty.

This is why I made the point that an INT 2 bruiser was also the one who was able to save the data: in Traveller it is quite feasible to have a INT 2 ex-nayy guy like this one who, as a result of the lifepath rolls, happens to have Computer-2 (in the backstory: he was passably competent in the Engineering section, but when transferred to bridge duties his limitatins became clear and he was mustered out). In D&D that role would be played by a spell-user, or (perhaps) a thief, but not by a fighter or barbarian.

Because in-class, and because stat + skill, right? Ranks could pretty easily be the most significant portion of a skill bonus, and, yeah, I know 2 is pretty good in Traveler (at least it was, 1 was perfectly competent, IIRC), and the scale is completely different thanks to d20's proclivities...

I'm not very familiar with D20 modern, but my understanding is that it is based on "talent trees" that are associated with classes, so (I assume) the real computer skill would be associated with a Smart Hero, not a Strong one.

I haven't played it in over 10 years (and never played it much, the "Stat Hero" classes in place of archetypes did not appeal) and can't say I recall details, but I'd be mildly surprised if there was no way to do some equivalent of cross-classing to get a slightly against-type skill or other trick.

4e skill challenges use a range of devices to help "flatten" the variability of the maths - mutiple checks, use of rituals and action points and powers and "advantages" (per the Rules Compendium) - but these (i) tend to drift expertise back to a class orientation, and (ii) give the game its own feel which I will testify from experience is not very closee to Classic Traveller.

I know the topic drifted to aping other games feelz and system-artifacts and whatnot, but I don't put much stock in it, as I've said it's a rabbit-hole with little bearing on anything.
Can you do the same characters, in the same genre, in the same situations, and tell the same story?

In this case, though, I was thinking more of just the structure of the challenges. Can you have a scenario involving the elements in question, and resolve it, depending on edition, with as much interest & agency as I ever got out of Traveler (and I did play it more than a bit in the 80s - I'll laugh if 'Classic' Traveler is nothing like it was then, though I suppose I won't be too suprised).

 

[pemerton]

In this case, though, I was thinking more of just the structure of the challenges. Can you have a scenario involving the elements in question, and resolve it, depending on edition, with as much interest & agency as I ever got out of Traveler

Probably. You could probably also do the same with the Fighting Fantasy system (three stats: Skill, Stamina and Luck), in so far as you can frame the challenge, make checks to resolve them, and find out what happens.

I don't think this shows that the play experience of Fighting Fantasy closely resembles Traveller (or D&D).

and I did play it more than a bit in the 80s - I'll laugh if 'Classic' Traveler is nothing like it was then, though I suppose I won't be too suprised

I'm running the 1977 edition with some MegaTraveller inspired mods to the lifepath tables, and a skill list influenced by Citizens of the Imperium, Mercenary, High Guard and Scouts.

 

[Manbearcat]

Considered. It has no bearing at all on the connotations of 'principled' or 'disciplined,' that I can see.

It carries different information, fiat implies arbitrary and without regard to anyone or anything. Judgement implies consideration of other factors - not excepting principles, though also implying some flexibility, perhaps more so than discipline.

But I'd consider it as an alternative to fiat, specifically.

Hmm. When a player declares an action and picks a skill in BitD, as GM I have full authority to set the position and effect. Yes, I should follow the fiction, but I find that constraint present in any game I run. The rub is, though, that I, as GM, have the fiat to declare the position and effect of an action. I don't find the constraints to be a compelling argument for that not being fiat, because they're not actual constraints rather than advice. Much like your pitcher example in your other reply above, the coach's advice isn't a constraint on the pitcher so much as good advice. I find good advice exists regardless of system.

However, I do see strong merit in finding some way to differentiate systems where the GM has full authorial control vice systems that mechanically share out some authorial controls and limit GM authorities, but I'm not sure 'fiat' is the hill to die on there. I can live with it if you insist, though.

Definitely not interested in dying on the "principled and disciplined GMing" hill if it isn't useful as a term to delineate it from classic "GMing by fiat." "System-constrained GMing?" That just rolls off the tongue. Should catch like wildfire.

Let me rewrite the analogy to an even crappier one so we can focus on the crappiness of my analogies!

On crappy analogies that serve only to distract the conversation:

Instead of the pitcher and the coach, here is one; an artist and a show curator.

In the first instance, the curator says "create something that is moving."

In the second instance, the curator gives constraints:

1) Oil on canvas

2) Grays and muted greens w/ a single bright color

3) Convey the metamorphosis of profound loss

On Blades GMing: I'm thinking broadly here (as in informing to one degree, even if slightly, each moment of play). I'm thinking of the aspects of the GMing ethos which will guide and constrain which differentiate it from other games' GMing ethos (and therefore the experience in play for both the GM and the players). Some of these are extremely controversial (as they have been brought up many time in various forms). For instance:

At the apex, we have

Play to find out what happens (and all the suite of actions, principles, and "don't do's" that play exactly into this...of which there are tons...not going to name them all as there are too many)

Below that, but related we have things like

Ask Questions (and use the answers)

Telegraph trouble before it strikes (but follow through)

Be aware of potential fiction vs. established fiction (also a part of play to find out what happens, but I wanted to put this separately)

Keep the meta channel open

Don't block

Don't hold back on what they earn

Don't say no (go with no Effect and let them bargain the Effect up and/or Offer a Devil's Bargain)

There is a lot of other stuff including things that a lot of GMs on here (who are exclusively used to trad games) would say is "over"empowering (such as "Cut to the Action" or "Don't Get Caught Up In Minutae" - D&D 4e certainly got killed for its iteration of this indie axiom - "Skip the gate guards and get to the fun!"), but those above are the kinds of things I have in mind that are constraints or "constraining guidance." Having those subtly or significantly inform each moment of play is a (given the current representation on ENWorld...unwelcome) paradigm shift for GMs who are used to the (more-or-less) all-encompassing authority/latitude (in discretion on the nature/trajectory of the fiction, on rulings, and their hefty role in action resolution) that is afforded to them in various trad games.

Given that last sentence alone, I feel like constraint vs latitude/authority has to be the axis where we differentiate GMing in games like Blades vs a game like (say) D&D 5e.

Yes? No? Another axis?

---

Just an amusing aside as an ironic thought came to me. Despite the above (disempowering or constraining aspects of Blades GMing), the game is significantly more lethal/"good guys" don't win-ey (in bad ways) than any D&D that has ever been conceived. And we often see player empowerment/GM "disempowerment" as an "EZMode" epithet.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Partly right.

The question is what the GM can do TO the system to make it better reflect the feel she wants her game to have; and whether a given system can withstand it.

I'm not sure what 'withstand' means. I think that the gist of what you're saying is about if a workable 'hack' can be constructed. I wouldn't presuppose that any given person couldn't make a workable hack, as a general proposition. I think it is best to talk in the most concrete and detailed terms in this sort of case.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So you are claiming that at a high level and in a general sense D&D 5e Bonds/Flaws/Ideals and Inspiration can't serve the same purpose as Aspects... Yeah we are just going to have to agree to disagree. While it is up to the group to push those mechanics to the forefront in D&D it is also up to the group in a FATE game to engage with aspects and the FATE economy as opposed to skills, stunts, etc. So no I've seen no valid push back on this only when it comes to details and whether they can perfectly mimic the FATE mechanics as opposed to the general purpose... which again I'll state I never claimed. I also fail to see where the push back against the looser rules for idelas/bonds/etc. being an advantage in D&D (for a group of players with more diverse tastes) has been countered or pushed back on...

Well, arguing about 'tastes' is a fruitless endeavor. I have never mentioned 'taste' at all...

I think, as I just told [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], we need to be explicit and concrete and talk details. I don't know what 'at a high level' means. I know specific situations at tables and categories of similar situations at tables as their generalization. So, I would say, in general, when a player wants to do something like have his character's 'aspect' (generally a qualitative thing) be reflected concretely in the game situation, that is to have some real mechanical and procedural heft, then FATE is more likely to be able to meet that need. This is kind of general though. We cannot say that there is NEVER a case where 5e's Inspiration/Bonds system will deliver this. It could, but since Inspiration isn't actually tied explicitly to PIBFs, which have no defined mechanical impact AFAIK. There's a vague "the GM might give you inspiration if you play in a way that reflects your traits" but it doesn't even say if it is positively or negatively! (IE you would GAIN inspiration for taking actions beneficial to your character if they happen to align with his PIBFs).

Again I started from and have been talking at a high level... I have claimed that 5e inspiration along with bonds/ideals and flaws can do the same "what" as FATE's aspects and FATE points for players in a D&D game, not that the "How" is the same, that's what I wanted to discuss the differences around. To claim D&D 5e could do everything the mechanics of FATE do in the same way they do it is a silly argument since they are different systems. There's no way this could be possible. I asked for details because I thought it would be interesting to compare the how in each game... remember my list of questions... but instead of taking it as a prompt for discussion and analysis you and @ABDULahzared took it as some type of attack on FATE or indie games or I don't know exactly... and even here you've decided my argument for me byt stating I am saying D&D 5e can do everything FATE can do... that's not what I posted and it's never been my argument that's your takeaway after getting offended and extrapolating from my post. I guess if you attribute it to me enough times it'll stick.

Again though, I don't really understand what is meant by "at a high level". If you mean sort of in a hand-wavy kind of way that both games have some sort of mechanics that include character traits and some sort of mechanics that can give bonuses to checks, then I guess 5e and FATE are close cousins! I think that's so vague however that it misses the entire essence of what each game is really about.

What I'm saying is that I think the two systems are so qualitatively different that 'what' they accomplish is only 'the same' in an extremely superficial way. I've never said 5e can do everything FATE can do or that you seriously argued that, although [MENTION=2486]Al[/MENTION]drac DID quote where you made statements which are EXCEEDINGLY like that statement! You very certainly did attempt to minimize the central nature of aspects/compulsion/invocation in FATE. I didn't set out to prove that you were 'wrong that 5e can do all that FATE can do', I set out to prove that your assertion that FATE is just "FUDGE with a few narrative elements slapped on it". This assertion was, frankly, completely wrong! It gave the whole discussion a character that produced inaccurate conclusions. I simply corrected it, perhaps with zest, but it was simply a correction.

Because at this point I wanted to clarify my actual argument so YOU understood my position (which as I stated before you seem to be making a habit of misconstruing). If my position is unclear how are we going to have an actual discussion about it. You will always view and approach my posts as if I am trying to one up or prove something I'm not and that will most definitely color the conversation (as it already has since the past couple of posts I've gotten from you have been filled with that snark you felt so keen to lecture me on earlier.).

You have been somewhat inconsistent, as [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] accurately pointed out in his response to your last post before this one. I am happy to take it that you have clarified your position here. FATE is not simply a skill-based system with some traits tacked on. If this is an accurate assessment of your current position, then we can proceed from there and need not beat expired equines anymore.

I'm willing to discuss but it has to be in good faith and without viewpoints and arguments being ascribed that were never made and honestly you don't seem like that's the place you want to approach this from right now. But please if you really would like some discussion and an exchange of viewpoints then let me know and I'd be more than happy to engage you.

Its not necessary for me to recapitulate what I stated above, so I won't. My position is as it has been. 5e has some fairly superficial and minor 'trait' attributes which loosely couple to an Inspiration mechanism. FATE OTOH is a system which is entirely driven by aspects as its universal mechanical underpinning. While FATE does have (potentially at least) skills as well, they are mostly useful to set the success/fail threshold for the various checks, which are then subject to the aspect rules. Skills are not totally unimportant, but it is telling that FATE core doesn't even have a suggested list of them that I can recall, they are entirely setting-specific.

No it doesn't you've shown that FATE 's mechanics are very focused on a particular experience how does this speak to flexibility. Can FATE provide a tactical experience if one player in the group wants that? Do it's mechanics support the type of customization and build choices that a powergamer would enjoy? Can you play casually without fully engaging with FATE's mechanics and the game not suffer? Can a player focus purely on combat if he is a butt-kicker type? I think this is a totally separate conversation that hasn't been addressed up till now and I was hoping @Campbell would go int more depth about why he saw them as flexible.

I think that FATE is going to likely tend to be more abstract in terms of tactics. That is to say, your character might have an aspect or a skill that bears on his tactical prowess. You would assert your tactical chops by leveraging that aspect in some sort of 'I apply tactics to this situation' check instead of practicing tactical principles yourself as a player. Now, I think it could be possible to make a FATE-based game that WAS tactical in 4e-esque kind of way. I'd have to think carefully about how that would work if I wanted to design it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Since 3.0, if not 2e S&P, skill checks have been the main mechanical way of addressing non-combat challenges. They're often avoided, because they haven't always worked great, or because players realize they can couch actions to get success without checking the character's skill, but they do exist, FWIW.

I think it is very trivially easy to see how 'skills', when implemented at all, in 'classic' D&D were of little significance, even in 2e where NWPs were at least presented as a possibility in the core books.

1. They were NEVER used to represent anything like a class or race ability, even when they obviously could have been (IE thieves, rangers, elves, etc.).

2. They were always optional systems (2e NWPs, 1e Secondary Skills, etc.). The one marginal exception was OA, where they ALMOST became a significant subsystem.

3. No implementation in classic D&D was actually mechanically viable in any sensible way. DSG, WSG, OA, and 2e PHB (etc.) implementations were mechanically unworkable in significant ways. I was always dubious that they had ever really been playtested, and they almost seemed like a way of simply discouraging players from doing 'other stuff' vs actually something you would use in practice.

4. The implementation in 3e is PROFOUNDLY different. 3e skills have serious bugs, but they are actually mechanically usable and fairly successfully implement core parts of the game like thief skills and such.

I disagree that, pre 3.x, they were used for anything except color in RP. A clever DM in OA (for example) would probably allow a character with 'Tea Ceremony' or whatever to simply do his thing and ignore the actual mechanic of it, but in a mechanical sense they weren't something you could ever depend on.

I think they were mostly avoided because they didn't really fill a needed spot in classic D&D. You had ability score for raw capability, and class provides everything specific, with all else being relegated to PC omnicompetence or being a test of player skill.

It is informative to see how Gygax used thief skills in OD&D. They were explicitly described as a tool by which the thief character could 'do the impossible'. They weren't skills in the post-2e sense at all, they were magical class features, which allow thieves to climb sheer walls, move silently across fields of broken glass, disarm diabolic magical traps, read incomprehensible writing, etc. Simply hiding in a good safe hiding place, climbing a cliff using a rope, walking quietly on a clean stone floor, or plugging up the spout of a flaming oil dispenser, etc. don't require checks of any kind in OD&D.

Admittedly, even Gygax became a lot less clear about this distinction in AD&D, where he seemed to want to back off from the more fantastical aspects of it. I'd assume he spent a lot of time rejecting crazy player shenanigans and wanted to put the kibosh on all of it. In any case, he had no need for a skill system.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4. The implementation in 3e is PROFOUNDLY different. 3e skills have serious bugs, but they are actually mechanically usable and fairly successfully implement core parts of the game like thief skills and such.

I tossed in the 2e S&P reference, just in case, since I barely glanced at it, having given up on 2e bloat by then. 3.0 was the main point.

 

[pemerton]

"System-constrained GMing?"

<snip>

Just an amusing aside as an ironic thought came to me. Despite the above (disempowering or constraining aspects of Blades GMing), the game is significantly more lethal/"good guys" don't win-ey (in bad ways) than any D&D that has ever been conceived. And we often see player empowerment/GM "disempowerment" as an "EZMode" epithet.

Burning Wheel has stated GM's principles, and also duties that govern "the sacred and most holy role of the players".

From the rulebook (Revised p 268; Gold p 551 - the text is the same in both editions):

In Burning Wheel, it is the GM's job to interpret all of the various intents of the players' actions and mesh them into a cohesive whole that fits within the context of the game. He's got to make sure that all the player wackiness abides by the rules. When it doesn't, he must guide the wayward players gently back into the fold. Often this requires negotiating an action or intent until both player and GM are satisfied that it fits both the concept and the mood of the game.

Also, the GM is in a unique position. He can see the big picture - what the players are doing, as well as what the opposition is up to and plans to do. His perspective grants the power to hold off one action, while another player moves forward so that the two pieces intersect dramatically at the table. More than any other player, the GM controls the flow and pacing of the game. He has the power to begin and end scenes, to present challenges and instigate conflicts. It's a heady responsibility, but utterly worthwhile.

Most important, the GM is response for introducing complications to the story and consequences to the players' choices. Burning Wheel is all about choices - from the minute you start creating a character, you are making hard choices. Once play begins, as players choose their path, it is the GM's job to meaningfully inject resonant ramifications into play. A character murders a guard. No big deal, right? Well, that's up to the GM to decide. Sure there's justice and revenge to consider - that's the obvious stuff - but there's also the bigger picture elements to consider: whole provinces have risen in revolt due to one errant murder.​

The next page of both rulebooks goes on to discuss "the sacred and most holy role of the players", who "have a number of duties", to:

[O]ffer hooks to their GM and the other players in the form of Beliefs, Instincts and Traits . . .

[L]et the character develop as play advances . . . don't write a [PC] history in which all the adventure has already happened . . .

se their character to drive the story forward - to resolve conflicts and create new ones . . . to push and risk their characters, so they grow and change in surprising ways . . .

Use the mechanics . . .

Participate. Help enhance your friends' scenes and step forward and make the most of your own. . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself. . . .

Above all, have fun. . . . Listen to the other players, riff off of them; take their leads and run with them. Expand on their madness, but also rein them in whey they get out of hand. Remember that you're playing in a group, and everyone has to have fun.​

The players are in some sense "empowered" - they have a duty to offer hooks, to use the mechanics, to drive the story forward - and the GM is constrained by the rules (and has the duty "to make sure that all the player wackiness abides by the rules". But it's not an "EZmode" game. It's pretty brutal.

 

[Aldarc]

Foul!

The description only said that you /could/ draw on your inspiration in those thematically appropriate way. You could instead draw on the compassion you RP'd when negotiating with the beggar king to assassinate him later that evening, sure, but that doesn't make you dissociative (mechanically)...

That's my point. The source of inspiration is dissasociated from how that Inspiration is spent. This is discussed in Angry DM's article "11 Ways to Take the Suck Out of Inspiration in D&D." In particular check out the part Where the System Falls Apart:

Where the System Falls Apart

Now, there is this implicit connection between Inspiration, Personal Characteristics, and Background. They are presented together and sequentially and Backgrounds offer examples of each Personal Characteristic. Moreover, on PHB 125, it explicitly says that the DM typically awards Inspiration for portraying your Personal Characteristics. It also lists other ways the DM might award Inspiration, but it’s pretty strongly implied that’s what it’s for.

And honestly, if it were, that would be pretty cool. If my Ideal is “I always try to help those in need, no matter what the cost,” it stands to reason that when I take a big risk to help someone in need, my action might get a little boost. There’s a drive behind it. At the same time, a handy bribe is useful to give me (the player) a nudge toward giving in to a characteristic that might hurt me or my friends. If “I am suspicious of strangers and expect the worst of them,” and a helpful ranger guide appears to lead my friends and out of the wasteland before we starve, that’s a dangerous Flaw to give in to. So, a little bribe makes me think about not making the best choice, but rather making the choice my character would make.

Unfortunately, that is absolutely NOT what Inspiration does.

See, the biggest problem with Inspiration is that the bonus that you receive is not tied to the choice you made in accordance with your Characteristics. When you act like your character, you get to bank a bonus that you can use whenever you want. The Inspiration isn’t tied to the choice you made. It’s earned by the choice, but it can be used on anything. And that’s a little backwards. You’d think that the Inspiration bonus for “helping those in need” would apply directly to the risky action I’m taking to help those in need, connecting motivation, choice, and action.

This gets worse when you consider the ability to pass Inspiration to someone else for whatever reason you want. Not only is the bonus disconnected from the choice that ostensibly earned it, it is now disconnected from the character who made the choice. It literally stops being about choice, action, and personality and becomes a coupon for one free Advantage useable anytime.

Meanwhile, the Flaw thing falls apart. See, I can earn Inspiration by acting in accordance with ANY Characteristic on my sheet. So, instead of choosing the Flaw that is going to get me into trouble as a way to earn Inspiration, I could just as easily choose a positive trait and never endanger myself or the party. Thus, Flaws are the least likely to see use. After all, I can decide my character might distrust the ranger and assume the ranger has ulterior motives, but in the end, he doesn’t act on that assumption because he’s willing to endanger himself (risking the ranger’s betrayal) to help his friends in need (by accepting the ranger’s help). I get Inspiration either way. But one of those things was more costly than the other.

But let’s not stop there. Because there’s another weakness in the system. And that weakness is the DM. The thing is, the DM is encouraged to give Inspiration about once per character per session (DMG 240). And the DM is given a whole list of good reasons to reward Inspiration. In fact, Personal Characteristics are a very small part of that advice even though the PHB suggests it’s a large part of Inspiration. So, in the end, Inspiration actually comes across more as a DM finding an excuse to give everyone one action point per session they can use to gain advantage on any one roll. Or using it to bribe players to play the game right.

And, look, I’m not down on that. I’m all about using incentives to drive the themes of the game. But when you look at it from that perspective, it’s pretty bland. It’s sort of dull. Un-in-… you know. Especially because the connection between Inspiration and Personal Characteristics is pretty damned powerful if you use it right. That’s when it becomes a role-playing tool.

On top of that, what I’ve found is Inspiration is one of the most easily overlooked bits of game in all of 5E. I’ve played and run numerous 5E games, one shots and short campaigns, with friends and with strangers, and Inspiration is almost always forgotten. First of all, it’s very easy for the DM to forget to give it out. Why? Well, first of all, because the DM has a LOT to keep track of. That’s DMing. But second of all, when you consider that you have four to five people at the table and each one has five different Characteristics, that’s 20 to 25 things to be on the look out for. And you never know when they are going to come up. Or which ones will come up.

So the DMs who DO use Inspiration tend to give it out for whatever weird, random reasons they have decided to reward the players. Being funny. Being heroic. Being moronic. Bringing snacks. Good penmanship. Good “role-playing” (by which I mean being able to come up with overwrought prose to describe how to swing an axe on a moment’s notice). Whatever. Which, again, weakens the power of Inspiration. It’s just the “here, have an action point for reasons.”

Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that players tend to forget about Inspiration. I’ve seen a lot of players end sessions with Inspiration they never thought to spend and didn’t even remember they had. So you end up with this bowl of poker chips in the middle of the table just to remind everyone that Inspiration is even a thing.

And that, to me, is the perfect metaphor for the Inspiration system in D&D.

It’s just this thing that’s easy to forget and sits in the game not really doing anything. It feels tacked on. Vestigial. An afterthought. It certainly doesn’t seem to have a clear purpose, as evidenced by the fact that the DM and the players get different advice about it and how it is weirdly disconnected from the mechanics that it seems to be connected to. It seems thrown in. “People like Bonds in Dungeon World and Aspects in Fate, we should probably slap something like that in there.”

I hate to say it like that, but that’s how it FEELs.

Angry DM even uses some of the language that I have used to describe the Inspiration in this thread, particularly in this last paragraph: e.g., vestigial, tacked on, afterthought, etc. Naturally, I don't exactly disagree with his assessment here.

You know if there were some players'd just horde it until they drowned in one.

And yet we don't see this in Fate? So are you suggesting that D&D players are just stingy?

Wouldn't that be 'good RP' in the absence of any incentive?

Not necessarily.

Neither the current ed of D&D nor Fate really lend themselves to casual play. Fate Accelerated, maybe, but FATE, with it's session 0 story-braiding (I don't know if that's fair, but it's hard to describe succinctly, and harder to do casually/quickly), requires a fairly high up-front buy-in. It seems like a 'serious gamers' product. D&D (basic pdf, perhaps), also maybe, if you do pre-gens, and pre-pick spells or just eschew casters, entirely.

I don't think it's that serious. I have seen first hand a lot of players who are "casual-in-play" who find this Sessions 0 fairly engaging process. I even did this with complete RP noobs, much to their own surprise and satisfaction. Though I think that this also was about the expectations and norms of RP and the depictions of the Game Master as "God" of the world and fiction.

IDK if 'saddles' is fair, but, while you'll get hps and proficiency bonuses like everyone else, you could dump CON, go about unarmed & unarmored, and choose all support & utility spells, and still be a contributing party member and a 'non-combatant' - only because you /choose/ never to prepare Spirit Guardians or Flame Strike or what-have-you, but, still, you could do it. Pacifist Cleric was a thing in both 3.5 (variety of pacifist builds, but cleric was the most practical) & 4e (which could also do a 'lazy warlord' who was great to have in combat, but, y'know, not actually doin' it himself).

Make me a mundane merchant who is not proficient in martial weapons, medium or heavy armor, spells, or sneak attack.

Its not necessary for me to recapitulate what I stated above, so I won't. My position is as it has been. 5e has some fairly superficial and minor 'trait' attributes which loosely couple to an Inspiration mechanism. FATE OTOH is a system which is entirely driven by aspects as its universal mechanical underpinning. While FATE does have (potentially at least) skills as well, they are mostly useful to set the success/fail threshold for the various checks, which are then subject to the aspect rules. Skills are not totally unimportant, but it is telling that FATE core doesn't even have a suggested list of them that I can recall, they are entirely setting-specific.

Fate Core does have a skill list, but it is expected that GMs are free to do whatever they want with them. Combine them. Replace them. Toss them out entirely. Use Approaches, Aspects, Professions instead. A lot of official publications from Evil Hat show the different things that other settings/campaigns do with the skill system.

Fate may have started out as a custom mod of Fudge, then that is no longer the case as of 2015. As you say, it is now an Aspect-driven system that uses some Fudge mechanics. Reading the Fudge rules reads like a completely separate beast than the Fate Core Rulebook or Fate Accelerated Rulebook.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it is very trivially easy to see how 'skills', when implemented at all, in 'classic' D&D were of little significance, even in 2e where NWPs were at least presented as a possibility in the core books.

1. They were NEVER used to represent anything like a class or race ability, even when they obviously could have been (IE thieves, rangers, elves, etc.).

2. They were always optional systems (2e NWPs, 1e Secondary Skills, etc.). The one marginal exception was OA, where they ALMOST became a significant subsystem.

3. No implementation in classic D&D was actually mechanically viable in any sensible way. DSG, WSG, OA, and 2e PHB (etc.) implementations were mechanically unworkable in significant ways. I was always dubious that they had ever really been playtested, and they almost seemed like a way of simply discouraging players from doing 'other stuff' vs actually something you would use in practice.

4. The implementation in 3e is PROFOUNDLY different. 3e skills have serious bugs, but they are actually mechanically usable and fairly successfully implement core parts of the game like thief skills and such.

I disagree that, pre 3.x, they were used for anything except color in RP. A clever DM in OA (for example) would probably allow a character with 'Tea Ceremony' or whatever to simply do his thing and ignore the actual mechanic of it, but in a mechanical sense they weren't something you could ever depend on.
.

I think if you feel this way, you should at least give NWPs a try again and see how they play. Folks should draw their own conclusions as well, rather than take anyone's word for it. I went back to 2E around 2007-2008 for a while and in all honesty, expected to laugh at many of the mechanics in action. To my surprise things like NWPs worked a heck of a lot better for my style of play, than the skills in 3E every did. In fact, my campaigns noticeably changed after I adopted 3E, and I always figured it was more me getting older and some of the magic fading. But it turned out, the skill system was a large part of the change. Once I went back to 2E, things played much more like I remembered them. The feel at the table was totally different.

It has been a few years since I played 2E, so I am rusty and not here to defend NWPs point by point. But I think they had a few things working in their favor. One they were tied to abilities, so they were generally a lot easier to use in practice than skills in 3E (where the expanding DCs could make many tasks nearly impossible unless you were very high level). I liked things being weighted more toward success based on your ability score (and because it was roll under, rather than a bonus against a DC, your ability score result mattered a heck of a lot more at a granular level). Also, NWPs generally, at least in the first PHB (latter options for them moved more in a 3E direction), were largely intended not to interfere with players roleplaying or interacting with the environment and exploring. Etiquette for instance, was effectively a knowledge skill. You didn't roll etiquette to talk to the duke, you rolled to see if you knew what was appropriate to do and say before the duke.

I had a similar experience with many of the mechanics in 2nd edition.

Again, this stuff is totally subjective. But definitely try a game on its own terms if you haven't before rendering a judgment (not suggesting you are doing this AA, just see a lot of people form judgments based on what other posters say rather than their own experience in play).