I want my actions to matter

[Maxperson]

So more skills, and more skill points, that works. Not sure I prefer 100 'tiny' skills over 25 'big' skills however, I tend to prefer a less granular scope for skills.

I prefer more granular. If I want a PC who is great at climbing and bad at swimming, I literally cannot do it in 5e. It's not possible. Oh I can hold my breath and pretend that he's bad at swimming, but the numbers on the sheet prove that to be a lie.

 

[tetrasodium]

Or if they had just made a skill system independent of how many PCs there happen to be. Why is that even a consideration?

Easy... I listed the minimum from background & class alone, PCs can easily have more skills from class subclass & so on. A five player group is going to have a minimum of 20 skills starting at level one & can probably expect that number to grow by simple class/subclass selection alone even without feats or getting into what PCs gain as they add in feats & MC choices for an easy six or more skills on a PC. The amount of overlap in important skills is going to be significant with only 18 skills given the presence of trash & A or Sranked skills. I

A group with only 2-3 players will have 8-12 skills minimum, by omitting the trash ranked skills & coordinating on important skills they can expect to have all or most of the important skills covered by someone in the group allowing everyone to feel like they have an important role with their area of expertise covered by proficient skills. By contrast a large group with 4-5+ players is going to have doubled up tripled up or maybe even more coverage on important skills through chance alone and still be likely to have at least one PC proficient in just about any given skill. Because of that coverage is so heavy it results in nobody feeling like they have an important role of expertise when any important check is likely to have the wind stolen from someone's sails when it gets followed by a literal chorus of "Oh I'm proficient too... can I try too?" An alternate skill system intended for larger groups would be structured in a way that everyone can still maintain their own little skill niche & any gaps are filled through magic items questing or interacting with NPCs using some other skill(s) just like the small 2-3 player group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, we have 18. Doesn't change my argument however, unless you say all you want to do is squeeze in a handful more

Mostly that is what I want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean… it’s a game.

So no game more complex than WotC 5e is acceptable?

 

[TwoSix]

So no game more complex than WotC 5e is acceptable?

I think it means that making design decisions prioritizing game play instead of prioritizing simulation or verisimilitude is understandable, even if that may not be your preference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So no game more complex than WotC 5e is acceptable?

Nope, just that I don’t think focusing on gameplay is ever really a bad idea for game designers.

Nor do I think complexity and game design are necessarily at odds. I like plenty of games that are complex and yet are still well designed.

I think it means that making design decisions prioritizing game play instead of prioritizing simulation or verisimilitude is understandable, even if that may not be your preference.

Yup. Very well said.

 

[bloodtide]

One thing to consider is that, by default, the DM does lead the story. The times a DM might be finding conflict are when the players don't have buy-in. In those times, one way to resolve the conflict is to shift the focus of the game to something the players are more interested in.

I'm still amazed that time and time again how it is said something like the DM must shift focus on the whim of the players. But no one has ever said the players must shift focus to the whims of the DM. I wonder why not?

In my view, it's not the DM's job to tell a story. It's their job to place obstacles in the way of PC goals, and then react to the decisions players and their characters make. Sometimes that means the players are really excited about what the DM has presented, and go with it. Sometimes it means they take wild tangents or try something new.

So you won't even say the DM gets to tell a story equal to the players?

A clearer example may be something smaller and more granular:

A DM has created a dungeon. A room has two doors, an open left door and a locked right door. The DM initially plans on the characters going through the open left door in order to find a key that opens the right door. The DM has placed some interesting monsters, traps, and plot points through that last door.

Instead, the characters choose to pick the lock, or cast Knock, or break down the right door.

Should the DM force them through the left door because that's the story they want to tell? Or should they adapt to the choices of the characters?

Yes.

Though the above is the worst example ever. Though it's typical of the problem way of thinking. See this is an example of a bad DM. The DM has a path for the players....and for no reason, gives the player a choice. Well, whenever you give someone a choice.....they might pick the wrong path.

The "Fix" is easy: don't give the players a choice. There is only one door. The characters go through it and encounter that the DM has placed some interesting monsters, traps, and plot points.

Or....if you feel you must have two doors for some reason....just make both door lead to interesting things.

This is not the same as saying the players should never get to make any choices....just that a choice like this is a bad example.

We're not IMO. You seem to be exhibiting a certain level of misanthropy towards your players, whether you realise it or not. You act like you are smarter/more experienced/wiser than they are.

Well, it's no "act", it's just true.

The disdain you show your fellow human beings is not going to get you very far, in any arena of life. If you treat others as equals, you might find you like the results. When you find yourself in a situation where everyone but you seems to be the problem, odds are that you've misread that situation.

Well, this is good advice for dealing with average or good people that act in good faith. Though it's useless for bad or worse people.

You use "your words" fairly often and they usually don't match up to how we use those same words. What exactly does Railroading mean to you? Because I can't tell what you mean by it.

It's complex. It would need lots of space to type out, and I would need to define each word so it could be understood.

 

[Maxperson]

It's complex. It would need lots of space to type out, and I would need to define each word so it could be understood.

Then do that. You can't come here and have conversations if nobody knows what you are talking about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it means that making design decisions prioritizing game play instead of prioritizing simulation or verisimilitude is understandable, even if that may not be your preference.

Well, I can't disagree with either part of that statement.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I'm still amazed that time and time again how it is said something like the DM must shift focus on the whim of the players. But no one has ever said the players must shift focus to the whims of the DM. I wonder why not?



So you won't even say the DM gets to tell a story equal to the players?

Yes.

Though the above is the worst example ever. Though it's typical of the problem way of thinking. See this is an example of a bad DM. The DM has a path for the players....and for no reason, gives the player a choice. Well, whenever you give someone a choice.....they might pick the wrong path.

The "Fix" is easy: don't give the players a choice. There is only one door. The characters go through it and encounter that the DM has placed some interesting monsters, traps, and plot points.

Or....if you feel you must have two doors for some reason....just make both door lead to interesting things.

This is not the same as saying the players should never get to make any choices....just that a choice like this is a bad example.


Well, it's no "act", it's just true.


Well, this is good advice for dealing with average or good people that act in good faith. Though it's useless for bad or worse people.


It's complex. It would need lots of space to type out, and I would need to define each word so it could be understood.

Well, I think I've said what I'm going to say as clearly as I can, and that's about all I can do. I'm bowing out of this conversation. Good luck with your gaming!