New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[P1NBACK]

Calling me a liar is grounds for reporting, but I'll let it slip since I think you don't know what "linear" means.

Right on. I misread that particular quote. Apologies.

You have been dishonest about this whole article though. I think that demands calling out. Report me.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Good points. IMO, the variance is already reflected in the actual roll - no player can be 100% certain that his character will succeed (particularly if the system has fumbles or something similar), but they should be reasonably aware of how well their characters can perform certain activities. For example, I know that there is no way in hell I could jump across a 2m wide hole. But I also know that jumping over a 1m hole is something I can do most of the time.

From my experience, explaining DM inconsistency through in-game constructs never ends well.

I agree 100%. My clarification would only be that some mechanisms (and I cannot remember specifics) allow the player to have more certainty than the PCs would have access to. Again, not a good or bad thing, just is. Secondly, for a DM and player to simulate a common/shared feeling of knowing that there's no way in hell you could jump across a 2m wide hole but could jump over 1m hole most of the time requires very simulationist guidelines AFAICT, which generally speaking, is what I understand is what 4E is moving away from. So depending on how many climb, jump, etc. guidelines you add, the more you're moving away from that 4E paradigm and into complex 3E-style rules. Again, not "good" or "bad" but something that Mearl really needs to touch upon IMO.

 

[KidSnide]

About the only part I agree with is that the mechanics of climbing should not be buried within the skill chapter. That's it.

Let's see:

1. Requires complex and non-intuitive table to use = horrible design
2. Adds complexity via incredibly fiddly and highly circumstantial abilities = horrible design
3. Hand-waves climbing difficulty with a call for DM fiat = horrible design

To start with, I agree with points #1 and #2. As to the hand-waving climbing difficulty, I would prefer more GM guidance, but I don't consider GM fiat for DC setting to be "horrible design". The elimination of a list of climb-specific DCs is a plus and a minus (plus for simplicity, minus for unpredictability) - exactly the sort of tradeoff that good designs will differ on.

But that's neither here nor there. I don't see this article as a specific climb skill example. I see this article as an illustration of how to (1) move the skill resolution rules into generic adventuring rules and (2) turn skills into non-combat feats. Both of those are good ideas, even if the specific climb implementation leaves much to be desired.

I mean, really, do the rules really need to provide four different special abilities to show that you're a good climber? I've seen games where characters were diplomatic in several distinct ways, but I've never heard of a game where different characters were good climbers in several distinct ways. I think "athletics" should be the skill and "very good climber" should be one of the athletics powers.

-KS

 

[Sammael]

Right on. I misread that particular quote. Apologies.

You have been dishonest about this whole article though. I think that demands calling out. Report me.

I am honestly frustrated as hell because Mearls is moving in a direction which is completely opposite from my interests. His proposed rules look like something found in an OSR game (several people already commented on that), and not something found in a modern RPG. In fact, I know of several OSR games that have more elegant solutions to these problems.

 

[AeroDm]

I agree 100%. My clarification would only be that some mechanisms (and I cannot remember specifics) allow the player to have more certainty than the PCs would have access to. Again, not a good or bad thing, just is. Secondly, for a DM and player to simulate a common/shared feeling of knowing that there's no way in hell you could jump across a 2m wide hole but could jump over 1m hole most of the time requires very simulationist guidelines AFAICT, which generally speaking, is what I understand is what 4E is moving away from. So depending on how many climb, jump, etc. guidelines you add, the more you're moving away from that 4E paradigm and into complex 3E-style rules. Again, not "good" or "bad" but something that Mearl really needs to touch upon IMO.

The easiest solution is for the GM to just be forthcoming with the DC before the player decides the character attempts the action. Many people are opposed to this, but I think that is a mistake. If I want to leap across a 20-foot chasm and the GM is describing the wind slick ice that has formed at either side and the ongoing gusts littering the air with cyclones of snow and ice, that is all great. My character can feel the wind and ice but I, the player, cannot. The GM can help the player understand the character's experience by being transparent about the DC.

I think that nuance is best represented by a general DC. I think the specific modifiers Sammael has been discussing are a mistake to put in place as hard rules, but useful in summing to a general DC. The reason is that they often do absurd things. Something almost impossible to climb suddenly becomes easy (reduce DC by 10) if there are handholds. There is ambiguity in the term "handholds" so we have just as much fiat and variance as any other system with the added problem of an "authority" telling us the way it has to be. I think Mearls' little system (and many systems) moves towards abstraction for this very reason.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The easiest solution is for the GM to just be forthcoming with the DC before the player decides the character attempts the action. Many people are opposed to this, but I think that is a mistake. If I want to leap across a 20-foot chasm and the GM is describing the wind slick ice that has formed at either side and the ongoing gusts littering the air with cyclones of snow and ice, that is all great. My character can feel the wind and ice but I, the player, cannot. The GM can help the player understand the character's experience by being transparent about the DC.

An added bonus (or is it a disadvantage if it becomes argumentative?) that the player can suggest modifying the DC like 'oh but i have these rubber sole boots, does not change the modifier you added because of slippery ice?'

I think that nuance is best represented by a general DC. I think the specific modifiers Sammael has been discussing are a mistake to put in place as hard rules, but useful in summing to a general DC. The reason is that they often do absurd things. Something almost impossible to climb suddenly becomes easy (reduce DC by 10) if there are handholds. There is ambiguity in the term "handholds" so we have just as much fiat and variance as any other system with the added problem of an "authority" telling us the way it has to be. I think Mearls' little system (and many systems) moves towards abstraction for this very reason.

I agree that theoretically anyway, DCs should be supported by some sort of guidelines; otherwise the DM makes up DCs that are pretty much arbitrary and an arbitrary DC doesn't seem to contribute much for better gameplay IMO.

 

[AeroDm]

But that's neither here nor there. I don't see this article as a specific climb skill example. I see this article as an illustration of how to (1) move the skill resolution rules into generic adventuring rules and (2) turn skills into non-combat feats. Both of those are good ideas, even if the specific climb implementation leaves much to be desired.

-KS

Agree. I never fail to be amazed. The article begins with, "People are asking for specifics, so I'll try. Note, this is a quick idea and I'm a bit out of practice, but here's the general direction I'm headed..." And then the majority of discussion nit picks not the broad strokes of the idea, but the specific implementation. Soon, he'll return to not giving specifics, and then people will bemoan the lack of designer transparency.

 

[Sammael]

But that's neither here nor there. I don't see this article as a specific climb skill example. I see this article as an illustration of how to (1) move the skill resolution rules into generic adventuring rules and (2) turn skills into non-combat feats. Both of those are good ideas, even if the specific climb implementation leaves much to be desired.

(1) is something we can all agree on. However, I am vehemently opposed to (2). Skills represent a subset of abilities that a character can become better at. Skills are gradual and variable. Feats, OTOH, are binary - you either have them or you don't. Merging the two is not desirable, IMO.

 

[Naszir]

One thing I'm a bit cautious about is that "you cannot fail" talent. It's sort of like adding "Miss: Half Damage" to all of your attacks (not just dailies! every one!). Or, perhaps even closer to it, saying "You cannot be damaged; every attack against you deals at least 10 points of damage per tier to those who attacked you."

What I am liking about this is that generally D&D is about heroics. It's just not "awesome" when you are trying to climb a wall and your character is generally good a climbing but you have a bad roll and the character falls when their may be no particular reason other than the bad roll.

The "Miss: Half Damage" inclusion was a good thing in my opinion. While the naming convention of attack rolls leads to a bit of a disconnect, there were not meant to be taken litterally (though some groups did and that's fine). I'd prefer more of a naming convention that labelled attacks "Good" or "Poor".

But anyway back to Heroics. So many times I have heard my players mention, "That is just great, we get this battle set up just right, I am in good position and my roll sucks. What a waste of another power." This is not to say that every time a character should have a good attack but the game might seem more enjoyable for Heroic characters to be set up to be more successful than at about 50/50 for their chances.

 

[Yesway Jose]

But anyway back to Heroics. So many times I have heard my players mention, "That is just great, we get this battle set up just right, I am in good position and my roll sucks. What a waste of another power." This is not to say that every time a character should have a good attack but the game might seem more enjoyable for Heroic characters to be set up to be more successful than at about 50/50 for their chances.

If the design intent is "heroic OR gritty" fantasy, is it feasible to bake in a easier baseline DC for heroic campaigns and a higher baseline DC for gritty campaigns? This is assuming that Mearls is ruminating on a game that is modular for heroic vs gritty as much as anything else.