Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 6073469" data-attributes="member: 94389">I like what the article says, it confirms how I interpreted his previous comments and articles and shows the DDN is moving in a clear design direction.Playtest packets are a mix of basic/expert/advanced rules and they really must be so. A linear approach would only lead yto a lot of backtracking since the 3 &quot;versions&quot; are meant to to be compatible.This thread talks about skill die a bit, so lets use that as an example. If Skill die are included as an advanced rule, they have to be able to collapse down into an expert and basic version as well as the basic version of skill use has to be able to expand out to expert and advanced. Simply removing skill die takes care of the basic version, but what if you have a mostly &quot;advanced&quot; game with a new player who brings a &quot;basic&quot; fighter? They are overwhelmed by the expert version and so truly want to play the basic version. Rather than force Skill die on them, how do you make them viable in a party that uses them? Simply &quot;dropping&quot; skill die for that character is not viable...they will likely fail more often. This is why the playtest can seem bipolar (tripolar?) at times..its trying to find systems that can be expanded and collapsed, balance them, make sure they are &quot;fun&quot; and not strictly mechanical, etc. Like Mearls said, skill die are far from ready for prime time, and in the discussions of skill die, we should endeavor to include them as long as they are on the table, but do so in such a way that is inclusive. If you think a static bonus is better than a skill die, fine. How do we go from static bonus to skill die simply and elegantly, that is the task.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jrowland, post: 6073469, member: 94389"] I like what the article says, it confirms how I interpreted his previous comments and articles and shows the DDN is moving in a clear design direction. Playtest packets are a mix of basic/expert/advanced rules and they really must be so. A linear approach would only lead yto a lot of backtracking since the 3 "versions" are meant to to be compatible. This thread talks about skill die a bit, so lets use that as an example. If Skill die are included as an advanced rule, they have to be able to collapse down into an expert and basic version as well as the basic version of skill use has to be able to expand out to expert and advanced. Simply removing skill die takes care of the basic version, but what if you have a mostly "advanced" game with a new player who brings a "basic" fighter? They are overwhelmed by the expert version and so truly want to play the basic version. Rather than force Skill die on them, how do you make them viable in a party that uses them? Simply "dropping" skill die for that character is not viable...they will likely fail more often. This is why the playtest can seem bipolar (tripolar?) at times..its trying to find systems that can be expanded and collapsed, balance them, make sure they are "fun" and not strictly mechanical, etc. Like Mearls said, skill die are far from ready for prime time, and in the discussions of skill die, we should endeavor to include them as long as they are on the table, but do so in such a way that is inclusive. If you think a static bonus is better than a skill die, fine. How do we go from static bonus to skill die simply and elegantly, that is the task. [/QUOTE]

Verification