LEgends and Lore: Skills

[Scribble]

I've always seemed to prefer Monte Cook's flavor text to his rules... But this idea is kind of intriguing me...

INSERT SUPER LINK FACE FOO

At first I was scared- but I like the summary at the bottom that highlights the ideas behind it. It made me start thinking about how it would work in play.

 

[TerraDave]

I was not thrilled.

More then most of these articles, this felt like a lot of change to resolve a very small problem.

 

[malraux]

My first big objection is what happens to the highly trained character. He'll hit the binary stage of either super competent or unable to do it. That's not real interesting, and at higher levels I'm not sure that impossible should stay impossible.

It also would seem to make the dm push everything to the category where you have to roll, at least subconsciously.

A system like this would make more sense for a modern game, but I'm not sure it would keep thing interesting enough.

 

[Vael]

There's some merit to this, but I think that only rolling at your skill level is a bad idea. Rather, you can roll for your skill level and one higher, and in combat, have to roll against skills one level lower (non combat (or non-stressful situations) can allow a "take 10" for success). Add "Epic Mastery" between Grandmaster and Impossible, and do not allow PCs to gain an Epic Mastery level of skill training. That still locks out Impossible skill checks, but gives some more variance of what you can actually roll.

What a skill system like this tends to do, though, is introduce more tables, as you almost need to add a time element to a lot of skill checks. To use Mike's example, a sedentary game designer could still try to walk a tightrope, but might be moving incredibly slowly on all fours. So, how quickly you can accomplish a skill is a degree of your skill training.

 

[keterys]

Could achieve the same thing by just having levels of skill give +10s and make the DC 10 or so, base, +10 per factor.

Not saying that's an improvement per see, but it gets you the same result while keeping the system closer to as it is.

 

[Scribble]

What a skill system like this tends to do, though, is introduce more tables, as you almost need to add a time element to a lot of skill checks. To use Mike's example, a sedentary game designer could still try to walk a tightrope, but might be moving incredibly slowly on all fours. So, how quickly you can accomplish a skill is a degree of your skill training.

I think though, what I find interesting at least, is it feels more "natural" to me?

Like in the case above, I know saying this is a "hard" thing to do, is just as easy as setting a hard DC, but I feel like I'm faster doing it this way then thinking in terms of numbers.

I'm not sure why?


I think it might make sense to let people roll one level above their skill level, just set the number much higher... Anyone can get a little luckier then normal.

 

[Vael]

I think though, what I find interesting at least, is it feels more "natural" to me?

Like in the case above, I know saying this is a "hard" thing to do, is just as easy as setting a hard DC, but I feel like I'm faster doing it this way then thinking in terms of numbers.

I'm not sure why?

I think it might make sense to let people roll one level above their skill level, just set the number much higher... Anyone can get a little luckier then normal.

If you accept my alteration (Roll for difficulty ratings one higher and one lower (in stressful situations)), you'd need only 3 DCs: 10, 15, 22. Add appropriate ability modifier. And unlike our skill challenge DCs, you wouldn't need to rescale them for level. Sure, higher level PCs would gain higher ability modifiers, but with the difficulty ratings, you still prevent PCs from doing too much wackiness.

What does amuse me about this method is that it does introduce some more jargon, in terms of the skill ladder. Which is what turned me off of some FATE games, I found their desire to put an adjectives to numbers to be counter-intuitive. I hated reading "you scored a Great result" and having to look up what Great meant in terms of numbers.

The other thing I see that's a little FATE-like, is a skill system like this almost calls for a skill pyramid that a lot of FATE games use. IOW, there's a limit to how specialized you can be in skills. You can't just be a Grandmaster in two or three skills, for every skill you are an expert in, you need two skills at Journeyman level.

 

[Scribble]

If you accept my alteration (Roll for difficulty ratings one higher and one lower (in stressful situations)), you'd need only 3 DCs: 10, 15, 22. Add appropriate ability modifier. And unlike our skill challenge DCs, you wouldn't need to rescale them for level. Sure, higher level PCs would gain higher ability modifiers, but with the difficulty ratings, you still prevent PCs from doing too much wackiness.

Yeah I don't think I have too much of a problem with that, but personally I think I would just make everything one level higher in combat (everything is more difficult when someone is also trying to stab you in the eye.)

What does amuse me about this method is that it does introduce some more jargon, in terms of the skill ladder. Which is what turned me off of some FATE games, I found their desire to put an adjectives to numbers to be counter-intuitive. I hated reading "you scored a Great result" and having to look up what Great meant in terms of numbers.

I find this kind of the opposite... I think currently we use a system closer to what you describe here. IE I can say something is a "hard" dc, but then I have to actually assign something in the hard range for that level.

In this system, something is just "hard" to do. I don't really need to know any numbers.

The other thing I see that's a little FATE-like, is a skill system like this almost calls for a skill pyramid that a lot of FATE games use. IOW, there's a limit to how specialized you can be in skills. You can't just be a Grandmaster in two or three skills, for every skill you are an expert in, you need two skills at Journeyman level.

Yeah I could see that.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I like the general approach but I think if one is going down that route then more nuance is required.

Some tasks are of a type that can be accomplished by anyone compentent in the required skill and that has the required resources. Thus a cook can bake a cake and a weapns,ith forge a sword. With in those skills some tasks take more time and/or resources but eventually they can be dome.

Then there are tasks that can be done eventually but may require multiple attempts to succeed.

There is stuff that one may only have one shot at and success is not guaranteed.

A lot of traditionally adventuring skill fall into the latter two categories. A lock may be pickable but it might take multipla attempts. On the other hand one may not.

One probably has only one shot at persuading the Baron to send soldiers to the border.


On the other hand most prefession stull one can or cannot do the task. The only aspect that one is uncertain about is how long it will take.

 

[Mengu]

Auto success is already there. Characters with primary stat and trained skill automatically succeed in easy DC's. Those with also a racial, background, theme, and item bonus may auto succeed moderate checks.

And if I'm the DM, I don't need a rule that "allows" me to say some things are impossible. I'm capable of deciding whether intimidating a mad wraith into submission is possible or not, depending on the circumstances.

As far as I'm concerned, the article really just talks about things we already do. It's not new. Maybe he's saying, it should take less effort to achieve auto success under certain conditions. Maybe a good point, maybe not. I don't think it matters terribly much because we want to roll dice when it matters. Under stressful conditions, even the most rudimentary tasks can become a challenge. My young barbarian might be a great swimmer, champion of the youth olympics, but if I've never been dunked in ice cold water wearing hide armor, carrying a crossbow at my side, a greataxe on my back, only to feel creepy tentacles brushing my legs, I might panic a little. My performance will be influenced by the conditions. It's relevant for me to make an athletics check to swim in this case. And adventurers typically make skill checks under such conditions, since resolving the trivial is not quite so adventurous.

I think that small chance of failure is something players and DM's both enjoy, as it keeps things interesting. If I fail that swim check, and I'm pulled under water by the grasping tentacles, the druid might change to an otter and jump in after me to help, the warpriest might cast a light to scare away any creatures of the night, and the halfling thief might just use this opportunity to satisfy her curiosity about what I'm hiding in my backpack that I don't seem to want anyone to find out. It's often as interesting to fail, as it is to succeed in skill checks. And if neither outcome is interesting, then the skill check wasn't really necessary to begin with, and it can happen off camera, we don't care.