D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Nemesis Destiny]

Thats imo impossible as we are talking about two completely different ways of gameplay.

I don't know how impossible it would be. Basic sounds like it's going to just use stat-checks for skills, and Standard and Advanced could offer different options in a rather bolt-on fashion that could take the skills one way or the other from there. Options. Modules. Dials. Whatever you want to call them.

 

[pemerton]

Personally, I don't care for that kind of rules set. I just happen to be good at a wide range of things just because of the skill system is just not my cup of tea.

I think scaling the cliff is completely arbitrary. Just because a fighter lopped the Dragon's head off, I would not then expect him to be able to scale a bare cliff face. One does not follow the other.

TThere is nothing that tells me the dragonslayer should be able to climb the impossible cliff.

As was pointed out upthread, I did not mention an impossible cliff (which perhaps by definition cannot be scaled by a mortal).

Anyway, my sense of genre-coherence is obviously personal to me. But out of curiosity, which heroic fantasy characters can you point me to who have the prowess to lop the head of a dragon, but lack the prowess to scale a cliff?

 

[pemerton]

I hate the less fail option because I don't play D&D to win or succeed, I'm there to play and accept whatever outcome happens.

I don't follow - if you don't mind what ouctome happens, why is success a bad option for you?

 

[Warbringer]

To me the hero is the guy who makes it through with the possibility of failure and I don't want my hand held by the system. I personally don't want another narrative style game that was 4th edition.

Understood, but I'm not saying that it is a narrative system, merely that the combat system is not binary. It has a mechanism that is dependent on successes ( hit points) and even if you fail a check (to hit) the combat ( the challenge) doesn't fail.

That is the D&D default mode and I want to see it in the other portions of the system ... Exploration and Social.

 

[Obryn]

Thats imo impossible as we are talking about two completely different ways of gameplay.

Why in the world would something as easy as this be impossible?

It's just skill checks. You give bonuses.

I'm as skeptical of D&D Next's ability to cover multiple playstyles as anyone, but this is trivial.

-O

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Thats imo impossible as we are talking about two completely different ways of gameplay.

Why in the world would something as easy as this be impossible?

It's just skill checks. You give bonuses.

I'm as skeptical of D&D Next's ability to cover multiple playstyles as anyone, but this is trivial.

-O

I will point out just how trivial it is with an example that [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] should know well (based on the SR icon in his side pane): Shadowrun.

It has a skill system that goes from stat checks, to skills, to concentrations, to specializations; from incredibly broad to monofilament-narrow. All within the same skill system. And in that game, it works (I've played/GMed a fair bit of SR in my day, from 1e to 3e).

However, the SR skill system has something that D&D's skill system does not, that gives it balance and allows it to work: the costs. It's far cheaper to buy skills the more specific they are. If the D&D skill system did that, I'd be much more likely not to hate it, but it doesn't.

I mean in 2e, the "better" NWPs cost more than 1 slot, which gave it some granularity, but this disappeared in 3.x, much to the detriment of the system.

 

[timASW]

I think scaling the cliff is completely arbitrary. Just because a fighter lopped the Dragon's head off, I would not then expect him to be able to scale a bare cliff face. One does not follow the other. In any case it is just as easy to do in 3rd edition as 4e. You just have to want to make the climber.

This.

One persons bug is anothers feature. I dont see why being good at killing people with a sword should in any way make you better at rock climbing, reading/speaking foreign languages, understanding magic, or selling your used car.

That was biggest problem with 4e's skills. You automatically got better at everything, I found that absurd and it was yet another verisimilitude breaking element. 3e's skills felt more much believable to me. People have so much free time to develop skills and they decide what they want to spend that time getting better at.

Feels much more believable and organic to me.

 

[pemerton]

People have so much free time to develop skills and they decide what they want to spend that time getting better at.

Burning Wheel and Runequest are two systems I know that have mechanics for this. I didn't realise that 3E does also.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't follow - if you don't mind what ouctome happens, why is success a bad option for you?

Success is not a bad option but I don't want to sit down to a game that is geared more towards winning or success. I don't play to win or even succeed, I play the game and whatever happens whether I succeed or I don't I accept it. Success and failure need to be equal options unless I go the extra mile and work more towards my success.

Don't guarantee me success or a happy ending. If my first character doesn't make it through then I accept he wasn't meant to. Some people have trouble with that concept and I don't want a game that is built around that default assumption. I don't need the rules to hold my hand. I'm not that one guy who can only come up with one character concept her game who wants to be reassured that his character will make it to the end.

 

[Derren]

Why in the world would something as easy as this be impossible?

It's just skill checks. You give bonuses.

I'm as skeptical of D&D Next's ability to cover multiple playstyles as anyone, but this is trivial.

-O

No, its not just skill checks, it is, in the end, two different styles of gaming.
Scene based where skill checks are just another level appropriate obstacle and supposed to be overcome, thus PCs need to be good at everything to "participate" and goal based where the players have more control over the obstacles (which is difficulty based independent from the PCs levels) they face and success is not guaranteed. In that case its is OK if some PCs are bad at something.