Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5573989" data-attributes="member: 54710">I just want to note that this whole thread is filled with awesome.&nbsp; I've always wanted to go back to old school simplicity, but with the design advances of the past 20 years...To me the question is &quot;how few rules do you need to get 60% of the benefit of a skill system?&quot;&nbsp; Think of these as non-weapon proficiencies that act as ability check bonuses for relevant situations.&nbsp; It's not a definitive list of skills.&nbsp; It's more like RISUS or Over the Edge.&nbsp; If you have an ability check and you can convince the GM that one of your NWPs apply, you get a +5 bonus.&nbsp; Other than a list of suggested NWPs (maybe Traits is a better term?), that's more or less the entire rule.&nbsp; Sure, &quot;Stealthy&quot;, &quot;Perceptive&quot; and &quot;Diplomatic&quot; should be on a list of standard NWPs, but there's no reason you couldn't have &quot;Sea Captain&quot; or &quot;Archmage's Apprentice&quot; in the appropriate campaigns...(Of course, you need a Page 42 guideline for setting ability check DCs, but you needed that anyway...)The thing I like about this &quot;system&quot; (in as much as it qualifies as a system) is that it provides a very high level of character customization and a moderate amount of out-of-combat niche protection with less than a page of rules.&nbsp; Of course, there is a massive amount of GM fiat going on, but you're always going to rely on that for this type of old school game.&nbsp; The objective here is to provide a framework for the GM to apply fiat fairly to the individual capabilities of the characters.That certainly sounds better, although the balance depends on the convention of how many rounds of sneaking it takes to get into position.&nbsp; A little GM guidance could go a long way.&nbsp; My inclination would be to give the Rogue maneuvers (4e Executioner or Thief powers may be fruitful grounds for ideas) to provide some variety in the non-backstab turns.&nbsp; (I'm not saying it's a good idea.&nbsp; It's my inclination.)-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5573989, member: 54710"] I just want to note that this whole thread is filled with awesome. I've always wanted to go back to old school simplicity, but with the design advances of the past 20 years... To me the question is "how few rules do you need to get 60% of the benefit of a skill system?" Think of these as non-weapon proficiencies that act as ability check bonuses for relevant situations. It's not a definitive list of skills. It's more like RISUS or Over the Edge. If you have an ability check and you can convince the GM that one of your NWPs apply, you get a +5 bonus. Other than a list of suggested NWPs (maybe Traits is a better term?), that's more or less the entire rule. Sure, "Stealthy", "Perceptive" and "Diplomatic" should be on a list of standard NWPs, but there's no reason you couldn't have "Sea Captain" or "Archmage's Apprentice" in the appropriate campaigns... (Of course, you need a Page 42 guideline for setting ability check DCs, but you needed that anyway...) The thing I like about this "system" (in as much as it qualifies as a system) is that it provides a very high level of character customization and a moderate amount of out-of-combat niche protection with less than a page of rules. Of course, there is a massive amount of GM fiat going on, but you're always going to rely on that for this type of old school game. The objective here is to provide a framework for the GM to apply fiat fairly to the individual capabilities of the characters. That certainly sounds better, although the balance depends on the convention of how many rounds of sneaking it takes to get into position. A little GM guidance could go a long way. My inclination would be to give the Rogue maneuvers (4e Executioner or Thief powers may be fruitful grounds for ideas) to provide some variety in the non-backstab turns. (I'm not saying it's a good idea. It's my inclination.) -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification