Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="J_D" data-source="post: 1924763" data-attributes="member: 20956">Yes, in 3rd there were two different tables, one for IQ and one for DX, with different point costs.&nbsp; I also consider this an improvement that they reduced this to one standard cost for any given attribute mod/skill difficulty combo.Sounds like they improved it then, if skills can be based on other than only the two.As I said before, I don't object to this.Yes, and the details of how they implented this is what I object to.And this is exactly what I object to.I won't speak for anyone else, but I do understand exactly how it works, and I despise it.&nbsp; I demand and insist upon having a system of skill ratings (call them ranks, points, whatever you want) that are independent and absolute in and of themselves, although the costs per point may increase nonlinearly and I have no problem with the base attribute modifying the end chance of success.Relative isn't good enough for me.&nbsp; I want an objective and absolute measure that says a character has X amount of training/education/experience in a given skill.&nbsp; The basic attribute should modify the end chance of success, but the attribute itself should have no part in determining the actual degree of training/education/experience invested in the skill.You explained it clearly enough, and GURPS 3rd worked basically the same way.&nbsp; It sounds like 4th did a little streamlining without changing the basic way skills work.&nbsp; Which means I think it still sucks, however great other parts of the game system might be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="J_D, post: 1924763, member: 20956"] Yes, in 3rd there were two different tables, one for IQ and one for DX, with different point costs. I also consider this an improvement that they reduced this to one standard cost for any given attribute mod/skill difficulty combo. Sounds like they improved it then, if skills can be based on other than only the two. As I said before, I don't object to this. Yes, and the details of how they implented this is what I object to. And this is exactly what I object to. I won't speak for anyone else, but [b]I[/b] do understand exactly how it works, and I despise it. I demand and insist upon having a system of skill ratings (call them ranks, points, whatever you want) that are independent and absolute in and of themselves, although the costs per point may increase nonlinearly and I have no problem with the base attribute modifying the end chance of success. Relative isn't good enough for me. I want an objective and absolute measure that says a character has X amount of training/education/experience in a given skill. The basic attribute should modify the end chance of success, but the attribute itself should have no part in determining the actual degree of training/education/experience invested in the skill. You explained it clearly enough, and GURPS 3rd worked basically the same way. It sounds like 4th did a little streamlining without changing the basic way skills work. Which means I think it still sucks, however great other parts of the game system might be. [/QUOTE]

Verification