Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7943330" data-attributes="member: 16814">OD&amp;D had a really mushy systems for &quot;skills&quot;.&nbsp; It was, however, also binary, so that's in common.I think you've missed what the OP was going for, which wasn't denigrating D&amp;D games but instead trying to explore a different approach to skills.&nbsp; It's one I find most useful for my 5e game, as well, as I tend to use fail forward or success with cost on a failure rather than the 'no progress' baseline of the 'you fail' baseline often imported from 3e.&nbsp; Binary skill systems really put a lot of overhead load on a GM to avoid dead-ends due to dice rolls.&nbsp; Heck, the game goes ahead and puts the entirety of the skill system on the GM's back on page 6 of the PHB.&nbsp; If you're up for that, it's cool.&nbsp; Obviously, two years into my latest campaign and having run almost since release I don't have a huge problem with it, but it is one of those 'barriers' to new GMs.On the other hand, there are a number of other skill systems that work to reduce GM overhead and they're worth talking about.&nbsp; I'm not a fan of the fiddly dice symbols ones -- they work just fine but I prefer clear stake setting and those require post hoc staking based on roll results.&nbsp; I'm very fond of systems that build in success with cost as the most common result and have failures involving the GM complicating the situation rather than blocking progress.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7943330, member: 16814"] OD&D had a really mushy systems for "skills". It was, however, also binary, so that's in common. I think you've missed what the OP was going for, which wasn't denigrating D&D games but instead trying to explore a different approach to skills. It's one I find most useful for my 5e game, as well, as I tend to use fail forward or success with cost on a failure rather than the 'no progress' baseline of the 'you fail' baseline often imported from 3e. Binary skill systems really put a lot of overhead load on a GM to avoid dead-ends due to dice rolls. Heck, the game goes ahead and puts the entirety of the skill system on the GM's back on page 6 of the PHB. If you're up for that, it's cool. Obviously, two years into my latest campaign and having run almost since release I don't have a huge problem with it, but it is one of those 'barriers' to new GMs. On the other hand, there are a number of other skill systems that work to reduce GM overhead and they're worth talking about. I'm not a fan of the fiddly dice symbols ones -- they work just fine but I prefer clear stake setting and those require post hoc staking based on roll results. I'm very fond of systems that build in success with cost as the most common result and have failures involving the GM complicating the situation rather than blocking progress. [/QUOTE]

Verification