Is less more when it comes to RP?

[AtomicPope]

I'd definitely say yes.

I'm playtesting another currently RPG and the detail level is stultifying. Example: The hitpoints are divided into 21 different body parts. But the details don't provided any realistic context in a game that strives for realism. A slightly above average character can get shot in the head with a 9mm at point blank range and live. Not just live but be quite normal. There is a chance that they can die, but that chance is not significantly greater than if said character was punched in the head.


I really like WoD because of it's simplicity, complexity, and gritty realism. Talking scenes are just Extended Actions. In other words, it takes so much time (successes) to make you point. If you fail you can retry (back pedal, change tactics). It's all a simple dice roll. The players talk and based on their soliloquy they may get a bonus, or penalty. It's almost no different from Roleplaying w/o dice but it benefits characters that are built to be socially adept (they succeed rather quickly and fail less often).

I've noticed that 4e is taking a similar approach to Extended Actions and I like it, very much.

 

[AtomicPope]

I don't know, I quite like having stats as they shape what the character can or cannot do. And all it really took was one or two points. If you were fighter who used to be a blacksmith apprentice then I'd say "put a point in blacksmith and we'll use Strength as the ability score" and if it ever came up he could use it. I think I might miss that in 4.0. Perhaps I'll give my players some spare skillpoints for things that simply aren't covered by the rules.

Still, let's give the new edition a fair chance. Perhaps if something really came up we could always use ability score + level bonus for things the character *should* be able to do.

I hate the points system. It's awful. Having a single point in a skill is a waste, especially for a fighter. The guy gets two points per level. Not enough to nickel and dime on skills he'll never use.

Thank the gods those days are over.

 

[Wepwawet]

(...) Cantrips were added as spells for those times when you needed a worthless spell like "clean undergarments." (...)

What?!? That is anything but worthless!
Especially after meeting a Big Bad Beholder

Apart from that, I *totally* agree with you!

Picking the sandbox analogy, yeah, in an empty box you can create anything your imagination comes up with.
With sand in it, you still can create anything, and you even have a change of materializing some of it (through drawings in the sand and making dummies).
On the other hand, a sandbox with toys, although it gives you concrete things to play with, limits you and your imagination to what is represented by the toys.

What I guess I'm saying is that less is definitely more, but it helps if you keep some actual base with which to play and develop your game.

 

[PeelSeel2]

Welcome to a part of old-school gaming.

 

[Ginnel]

I don't know, I quite like having stats as they shape what the character can or cannot do. And all it really took was one or two points. If you were fighter who used to be a blacksmith apprentice then I'd say "put a point in blacksmith and we'll use Strength as the ability score" and if it ever came up he could use it. I think I might miss that in 4.0. Perhaps I'll give my players some spare skillpoints for things that simply aren't covered by the rules.

Still, let's give the new edition a fair chance. Perhaps if something really came up we could always use ability score + level bonus for things the character *should* be able to do.

All characters get all skills at 1/2 level plus stat no? as long as your characters play it to their background theres no reason this can't represent the put a point or two in profession/craft so they know about smithing or baking or whatever : )

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am really not sure yet. I like what I see with 4E, but I still sometimes wonder if there shouldn't be _some_ kind of rule for purely background aspects.

But if there are such rules, I feel they should never ever force me to decide between a pure "fluff" ability (Basketweaving) and an important ability (Perception). And it just doesn't require the attention to detail of conflict-solving skills. No need to have to shuffle skill points and stuff like that.

So, "less is more", I agree with that. "Nothing is best" might not be true. I find it okay if there was something like a "background keyword" mechanic in 4E. Just describe your background with a few keywords, strung together in a narrative.

"I used to work as Blacksmith at my home town. When the war against the Goblins started, I conscripted in the army and became a soldier."
=> Bob McStabby, Fighter 1; [Background: Blacksmith, Soldier]
I don't know what Soldier "does" (what's a "soldier" skill that an adventurer or fighter doesn't have?), but if Bob ever gets to talk with Dwarf, he knows a topic they can discuss, and if he ever is forced to repair someone elses armor, he's your go-to-guy. If it really requires further rules, say: +2 to social checks if the skill would help you relate to a guy, and +5 if you need to make a check related to the "job" (that is not covered by another skill).
But already thinking about the problems of background jobs and adventuring skills colliding seems a little too much work...

 

[Irda Ranger]

So, "less is more", I agree with that. "Nothing is best" might not be true. I find it okay if there was something like a "background keyword" mechanic in 4E. Just describe your background with a few keywords, strung together in a narrative.

"I used to work as Blacksmith at my home town. When the war against the Goblins started, I conscripted in the army and became a soldier."
=> Bob McStabby, Fighter 1; [Background: Blacksmith, Soldier]

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. See "Non-Weapon Proficiencies", AD&D 2e.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I was toying with the idea of giving everybody 2 or so background skills for free that are similar to the 3e profession or craft skills, in order to give them some way to define it more, but I think in the end they'll probably be able to work that into their background without any rules...

All in all I am all for the less is more approach. The craft/profession skills are the only thing that I kind of miss...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. See "Non-Weapon Proficiencies", AD&D 2e.

Maybe... But maybe one has to look closer - what worked on it, and what did not?

 

[Connorsrpg]

What the hell has playing in a sandbox got to do with a RPG. That is the worst analogy so far and there have been some doozies since 4E came out.

Why not actually stick to talking about what is being talked about, instead of these 'analogies'?