Monte Cooks First Legends and Lore

[nedjer]

I'm not adverse to players auto succeeding because of training, but I think it needs to be active. Passive stuff annoys me because it is silly, there is no outside force setting the DCs, I set them, so I'm dictating whether the PC passes or fails. Pointless.

Different perspectives The blog post appears to be saying 'we have mechanics for perception, but they're not all they could be. If we standardize and think through those mechanics we can have a better set of mechanics for that side of the game - and these don't need to slow play if they're streamlined'.

From a technical perspective it's great design, as play is being made more authentic without paying a heavy overhead in terms of keeping track of what's going on.

However, beyond that I'm left asking what effects extending simulation through mechanics is likely to have on gameplay. This seems, to me, to be all about where you place the mechanics cart in relation to the players' horse.

For me the lifeblood of play is the negotiation, interplay and layering of narratives, which clearly places the GM and players' horse in front of the mechanics cart.

This approach could be interpreted as the GM dictating whether or not a PC lives. Or it could be seen as placing negotiated player choice and engagement ahead of rough and ready simulation?

 

[Barastrondo]

If a player interacts with the environment in such detail then the reward is finding whatever there is to be found. Period. The dice are there to be thrown when there is doubt. A player saying "I check the room carefully" might find the secret hollow tooth. The dice will decide. If a player bothers to check out the teeth specifically then he/she finds whatever is there.

I'm a strong defender of skill systems because I like empowering players who are too tired or inexperienced to give the exact answer the GM is looking for the opportunity to still play and have a shot at success. And on this we're in total agreement. If you find the lever but cannot open the secret passage because your skill's not high enough, that should be a singular exception with a good reason why, not a default possibility.

 

[P1NBACK]

Originally Posted by Monte Cook
"And best of all, if the player told the DM that his character was doing exactly the right thing-—checking the statue's teeth to see if one moved-—the DM could easily grant him a bonus to his rank and make what was impossible to find, possible. Player ingenuity rewarded."


Rewarded? I suppose what is a reward to some is a slap in the face to others. Put me in the latter camp.

If a player interacts with the environment in such detail then the reward is finding whatever there is to be found. Period. The dice are there to be thrown when there is doubt. A player saying "I check the room carefully" might find the secret hollow tooth. The dice will decide. If a player bothers to check out the teeth specifically then he/she finds whatever is there.

Searching and examining things is simply playing the game. It is something for players to actually get involved in. The choice to just do a generic search or a more detailed examination should be left to the player. Paying attention to detail and interacting with the environment will almost always produce better results than relying on a die roll.

Its a simple choice of where do you want player decisions to matter more, during character creation or actual play?

This.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Here's an odd thing:

Assume that you make your character good at finding stuff because you want, as a player, to interact with the environment. Poke and prod at stuff, that sort of thing.

In order to do that, you want to make sure your "finding stuff" skill is in the sweet spot - not too high that you can't find stuff, but not too low that you find nothing. edit: that's confusing; "not too high that you, as a player, have no need to interact with the environment" may clear it up.

It seems as though the skill system is saying that players who want to spend time in play going through finding stuff shouldn't max out their find stuff skill. They should choose a class like fighter or wizard instead. Players who don't want to spend time searching for stuff should choose a rogue.

Which strikes me as backwards.

I'm feeling pretty good about my ability to read between the lines on these articles:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...s-lore-player-vs-character-2.html#post5669882

It does seem rather backwards at first glance, but I think it isn't when you pull back a bit for a wider view. First, we aren't just talking about who is good and who is average and who is poor. We are talking about those things relative to the campaign (style). So the obvious fix is that if the guy who maxes out Perception (say at Expert at his current level) wants to still find things by actively searching as a player, then you put in plenty of stuff at the next rank (Master).

If you stop there, however, you haven't really done anything different than what previous versions have assumed: That challenges will be often maxed out, and the players will accordingly max out skills to deal with them.

What if, though, you have players that still want the thrill of finding things themselves, but want more well-rounded characters? Moreover what if you have a mix in the same party? Well, you'd like a bit of wiggle room at the top. You want it so that the players' choices of skills are strong flags about what they want, within the relative power needed to handle the challenges of the games. In effect, if you are currently centered around Expert, then Expert perception is good enough for the guy who wants that challenge.

If someone wants to bypass it, they'll have to pay for Master perception when that is a real cost. But they can, if they want (and are willing to forgo breadth to do so). Under earlier versions of D&D, no one really has that option.

So it isn't so much that, to use a modern analogy, that the paramedic isn't expected to max out his paramedic skill. It is that if the paramedic wants to badly enough, he can become a doctor--thus nullifying a lot of the challenges of the paramedic tasks. It would be kind of odd if he did that with no intention of going after doctor challenges, but then players have different things they want to focus on, and the player isn't investing another 5-7 years of his life to get that bump.

 

[Nagol]

I'm feeling pretty good about my ability to read between the lines on these articles:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...s-lore-player-vs-character-2.html#post5669882

It does seem rather backwards at first glance, but I think it isn't when you pull back a bit for a wider view. First, we aren't just talking about who is good and who is average and who is poor. We are talking about those things relative to the campaign (style). So the obvious fix is that if the guy who maxes out Perception (say at Expert at his current level) wants to still find things by actively searching as a player, then you put in plenty of stuff at the next rank (Master).

If you stop there, however, you haven't really done anything different than what previous versions have assumed: That challenges will be often maxed out, and the players will accordingly max out skills to deal with them.

What if, though, you have players that still want the thrill of finding things themselves, but want more well-rounded characters? Moreover what if you have a mix in the same party? Well, you'd like a bit of wiggle room at the top. You want it so that the players' choices of skills are strong flags about what they want, within the relative power needed to handle the challenges of the games. In effect, if you are currently centered around Expert, then Expert perception is good enough for the guy who wants that challenge.

If someone wants to bypass it, they'll have to pay for Master perception when that is a real cost. But they can, if they want (and are willing to forgo breadth to do so). Under earlier versions of D&D, no one really has that option.

So it isn't so much that, to use a modern analogy, that the paramedic isn't expected to max out his paramedic skill. It is that if the paramedic wants to badly enough, he can become a doctor--thus nullifying a lot of the challenges of the paramedic tasks. It would be kind of odd if he did that with no intention of going after doctor challenges, but then players have different things they want to focus on, and the player isn't investing another 5-7 years of his life to get that bump.

But doesn't the problem occur when player A wants the thrill so he buys Expert, but player B wants to bypass it so he buys Master? Now, player B automatically notices before player A goes through the poke/prod investigation routine.

Player A's fun is undercut because player B doesn't find the same thing fun and he built an escape hatch to avoid the issue.

The solution shouldn't be to add a level above Master and to say that active searching can add multiple ranks instead of just one (or auto-find as discussed previously). Otherwise, Player B now has incentive to specialise even further to avoid a not-fun activity or participate in aspects of play he doesn't enjoy.

 

[wrecan]

But doesn't the problem occur when player A wants the thrill so he buys Expert, but player B wants to bypass it so he buys Master?

No system can cure the problem of two players wanting to play different games.

If the party wants to play "Poke & Prod" then they the DM sets the search difficulties for stuff at the level where people have to roll to find it. If the party doesn't want to do that, the DM sets the search difficulties to the point where it's all automatic.

I just don't see how Mearls' Skill Tier mechanic is particularly useful. As far as I can tell, he wants a system where Trained characters get automatic success and everyone else rolls (with bonuses for clever narration). Just make that the rule.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But doesn't the problem occur when player A wants the thrill so he buys Expert, but player B wants to bypass it so he buys Master? Now, player B automatically notices before player A goes through the poke/prod investigation routine.

Player A's fun is undercut because player B doesn't find the same thing fun and he built an escape hatch to avoid the issue.

The solution shouldn't be to add a level above Master and to say that active searching can add multiple ranks instead of just one (or auto-find as discussed previously). Otherwise, Player B now has incentive to specialise even further to avoid a not-fun activity or participate in aspects of play he doesn't enjoy.

Exactly. The ever expanding arms race of specialization vs difficulty levels. If you leave discovery to actual play then those that enjoy it won't get stepped on by a die roll and those who don't enjoy exploration can zone out, or simply not participate as much as others.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

No system can cure the problem of two players wanting to play different games.

If the party wants to play "Poke & Prod" then they the DM sets the search difficulties for stuff at the level where people have to roll to find it. If the party doesn't want to do that, the DM sets the search difficulties to the point where it's all automatic.

I just don't see how Mearls' Skill Tier mechanic is particularly useful. As far as I can tell, he wants a system where Trained characters get automatic success and everyone else rolls (with bonuses for clever narration). Just make that the rule.

Right. If you try to cure the two player with different expectations problem with rules, well ... see that earlier Legend and Lore article about when rules help and when they don't. (That's yet another way in which reading this articles too specifically instead of holistically can obscure what is being talked about. Those articles are related, even if the specifics don't make that immediately obvious.) This skill idea has nothing to do with stopping an arms race. It isn't designed for that. Talking about arms races is completely missing the point.

As to where this can be useful, it is not at the level that most of you are discussing it, which is action resolution solely. Rather, it is only marginally useful solely on action resolution grounds, compared to current options, in that it makes it easier for the DM to manage the challenges. Well-defined labels of well-defined concepts aren't critical to DM success, but they are useful. So if "expert" means something definite, and it can be called out that way, it is marginally useful in action resolution.

But mainly, this kind of thing is more useful in how it fits into the rest of the system and communication about same. It means that when the players pick skills, those skills are highly useful flags. Right now, skills are somewhat useful flags for a DM that has been around the block a few times, but this doesn't really permeate the rest of the system. Nor should that be surprising, given the relatively late development of skills in D&D.

It is not clear exactly how skills should work in a class-based system, and you can't entirely steal from skill-based systems to get every idea you need. Is anyone claiming that somewhere between 3E to 4E skills, we have the perfect answer? If you are, then Mike and Monte aren't talking to you. Like some of the rest of us, they think they can do better. If you are going to refine what is there, then poking around at the boundaries of why skills aren't quite perfect is going to take this kind of thinking. The failings are often subtle.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Monte Cook
"And best of all, if the player told the DM that his character was doing exactly the right thing-—checking the statue's teeth to see if one moved-—the DM could easily grant him a bonus to his rank and make what was impossible to find, possible. Player ingenuity rewarded."


Rewarded? I suppose what is a reward to some is a slap in the face to others. Put me in the latter camp.

If a player interacts with the environment in such detail then the reward is finding whatever there is to be found. Period. The dice are there to be thrown when there is doubt. A player saying "I check the room carefully" might find the secret hollow tooth. The dice will decide. If a player bothers to check out the teeth specifically then he/she finds whatever is there.

Searching and examining things is simply playing the game. It is something for players to actually get involved in. The choice to just do a generic search or a more detailed examination should be left to the player. Paying attention to detail and interacting with the environment will almost always produce better results than relying on a die roll.

Its a simple choice of where do you want player decisions to matter more, during character creation or actual play?

Spot on IMO. If someone searches for a movable tooth and that is where the secret door is, don't roll. Don't give them a 'bonus'. Just tell them that they have found it, for goodness sake!

 

[Mark CMG]

Spot on IMO. If someone searches for a movable tooth and that is where the secret door is, don't roll. Don't give them a 'bonus'. Just tell them that they have found it, for goodness sake!

Yup. And have them save versus poison. Cause ya know there's gonna be some poison. And maybe an explosion.