Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5490989" data-attributes="member: 996">There were two 'flaws' in the 3.x skill sytem, from a 'gamist' standpoint.&nbsp; Both were about creating incompetency.&nbsp; As a character leveled, he could only maintain competence in so many skills, thus, any skill he didn't invest in, he became worse and worse at (relative to the challenges faced).&nbsp; Similarly, there were an unlimitted number of 'fill in' skills - professions and whatnot.&nbsp; Each time a task became filled by such a skill, everyone without the skill became incompetent at it.&nbsp; While it's realistic for people to be good at things they're trained at, and not to get better at things they've never done, just because they've killed&nbsp; a lotta orcs, it's not very heroic.&nbsp; Thus, the gamist/narrativist aproach of 4e minimized both, by using a finite set of adventuring-related skills and a system that advanced competency in all skills as a character leveled.&nbsp; Realism/simulation was sacrificed from balance/playability.But that was only one way in which simulation was scrubbed from 4e, and not the most dramatic...That'd fall under Diplomacy in 4e.Nature.The skills in 4e just end up being a lot broader.&nbsp; The difference isn't in what PCs can do, so much as in what they can't.&nbsp;&nbsp; Much more so than the fixing of the skill system, the use of different mechanics and guidelines to build monsters and NPC than PCs made the game much, much less simulationist.&nbsp; In 3.x, everyone had a class and level.&nbsp; OK, for 70% of the population it was 'commoner' and '1,' but they all had their class, and skill points, and feat and so forth - just exactly like a PC.&nbsp; It made a nightmarish amount of work for the DM, who might feel obligated to stat out not just all the monsters (with their feats and skill points and possiblly class levels), but any NPC the PCs might interact with (need to know the barkeep's Bluff check...).&nbsp; 4e statts out monsters and NPCs relative to the threat/challenge/opportunity thay represent to the PCs.&nbsp; It's very PC-centric.&nbsp; Great for narrative or 'storytelling' or prepping a challenging but balanced encounter - worthless for simulation and deadly to verisimilitude for players expecting simulation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5490989, member: 996"] There were two 'flaws' in the 3.x skill sytem, from a 'gamist' standpoint. Both were about creating incompetency. As a character leveled, he could only maintain competence in so many skills, thus, any skill he didn't invest in, he became worse and worse at (relative to the challenges faced). Similarly, there were an unlimitted number of 'fill in' skills - professions and whatnot. Each time a task became filled by such a skill, everyone without the skill became incompetent at it. While it's realistic for people to be good at things they're trained at, and not to get better at things they've never done, just because they've killed a lotta orcs, it's not very heroic. Thus, the gamist/narrativist aproach of 4e minimized both, by using a finite set of adventuring-related skills and a system that advanced competency in all skills as a character leveled. Realism/simulation was sacrificed from balance/playability. But that was only one way in which simulation was scrubbed from 4e, and not the most dramatic... That'd fall under Diplomacy in 4e. Nature. The skills in 4e just end up being a lot broader. The difference isn't in what PCs can do, so much as in what they can't. Much more so than the fixing of the skill system, the use of different mechanics and guidelines to build monsters and NPC than PCs made the game much, much less simulationist. In 3.x, everyone had a class and level. OK, for 70% of the population it was 'commoner' and '1,' but they all had their class, and skill points, and feat and so forth - just exactly like a PC. It made a nightmarish amount of work for the DM, who might feel obligated to stat out not just all the monsters (with their feats and skill points and possiblly class levels), but any NPC the PCs might interact with (need to know the barkeep's Bluff check...). 4e statts out monsters and NPCs relative to the threat/challenge/opportunity thay represent to the PCs. It's very PC-centric. Great for narrative or 'storytelling' or prepping a challenging but balanced encounter - worthless for simulation and deadly to verisimilitude for players expecting simulation. [/QUOTE]

Verification