Legends & Lore: Loyal Opposition

[AbdulAlhazred]

IMO, it works, but not well. It is good enough to have some skills tacked onto a game that blends into the traditional ability scores, but nothing special. And I felt the same way about 3E/3.5. I think that is why he is messing with it.

As it stands now, it is very hard to keep the current structure while also catering to different styles. If you happen to like the style catered to by 3E or 3.5 or 4E, then it works "well enough" and is simple, which is a bonus. But even people that do like the style, like I enjoy 4E, still see scaling problems with skills as written. They also don't work so hot for larger groups, though group checks help a lot there compared to 3.*.

I'm not sure what you mean. Scaling is just a matter of how many skill bonuses do you have and how do they stack, so that's not really an issue worth debating, it can easily be fixed in 4e as it is (well, relatively easily) and presumably some kind of '5e' would handle this better.

I'm not at all understanding what the 'style' is and how that is different from what Mike proposes. Both systems are "Skills are ability checks with some sauce" and other aspects would really be dependent on details like what the skill list looked like, which we can't really say.

It also isn't exactly parallel to the combat system, though both of them using a d20 versus a difficulty make them seem so. (Or is that what you meant by parallel?) The role of hit points, spells and weapons are all notably different, as are several other things on the edges.

Yes, that was what I meant. They actually ARE meaningfully similar though, it isn't just 'seeming' to be the same. An item for instance can contribute a bonus to both a skill and to-hit and it means close to the same thing. A skill check can be made against a defense, etc. Hit points and such are not really nearly as relevant, the method of use for skills and attacks are different, but HOW they interact with the system is identical. This similarity means that both systems can usually be taken into account in the same way by various rules. Bonuses and penalties can be applied and understood in the same way. This saves a substantial amount of rules fiddliness.

I'd thought about this with last weeks article, because it occurred to me that using the proposed skill system for combat has some interesting possibilities ...

Well, I would just say this. Many of the comments I've made might potentially be irrelevant in a significantly different system with different combat mechanics. I'm a bit leery though of a system where there are 2 different ways to be 'better' at something. That seems like 1 too many ways to scale something. It means every single place in the game where you now have a simple defense number or attack bonus now needs 2 pieces of information, and every time someone develops some game element that affects those things they have to start asking themselves if it is a numeric bonus they want or a change in difficulty level. On such things do systems founder, regardless of good intentions.

If it was up to me I would stick with the simpler system unless there was an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to. KISS. Lessons learned hard in the process of building things many times more complicated than game systems. Maybe I make much of little. I'm not sure. I just don't get the 'good warm fuzzy feeling' from this, and I have learned to trust that instinct.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm not sure what you mean. Scaling is just a matter of how many skill bonuses do you have and how do they stack, so that's not really an issue worth debating, it can easily be fixed in 4e as it is (well, relatively easily) and presumably some kind of '5e' would handle this better.

I'm not at all understanding what the 'style' is and how that is different from what Mike proposes. Both systems are "Skills are ability checks with some sauce" and other aspects would really be dependent on details like what the skill list looked like, which we can't really say.

Scaling can include: How effectively you do something, how fast, how you hold up under pressure, how this interacts with other related things, and so forth. When all of that has to scale under a single roll + modifier, you can get some strange results.

If you have a simple system not mainly focused on skills, as are the various versions of D&D, then you can often get away with that. You just simplify to say that time is the same for everyone. And then you decide that the guy with a 20 Dex versus the 10 Dex Trained Acrobatics have no functional difference in balance checks, and it more or less works if you don't squint at it too hard.

But there aren't any good levers to adjust this. If you are wanting more simulation, then there isn't a good, core way to show that some people don't do things well. So you might keep expanding the skill list, but you run into all those problems that we know so well, like the 3E "Use Rope" being rather narrow. You just made the system not so hot for someone who wants it simple and the people who don't care much for simulation focus. If you put in some kind of Burning Wheel type of fate points for skill advancement, you just embedded into the game a dynamic that the non-narrative folks won't care for. You could also just go back to the earlier versions and make this ability checks, or ability checks + gloss, or even DM-fiat. But those systems aren't easy to change in meaningful, stylistic ways, either.

So for things to be easily tweaked, they have to be designed to be easily tweaked. 3E skills are not easily tweaked, and 3.5 and 4E skills aren't much better in this regard.

As for mulltiple ways to be good at something having costs, I agree. But if done full-bore (i.e. not half-heartedly as a sop), then can often be much more transparent and balanced than the single way.

If you want to do a dictionary, you can't get away from the fact that you are talking about words. Every word is a word. A dictionary is merely a giant list. Sure, you can organize, classify, etc. to make it easier to manage. But it is inherently a single thing, and should be modeled as such.

If you want to model a three dimensional grid, it is far easier to do with X, Y, and Z axes. Sure, you could collapse every point onto a line (if the grid is coarse and small enough), and show it as a list. That's how the data from a grid is stored, of course. But a thing that is fundamentally three dimensional is far easier to manage and visualize with the axes.

BTW, if you start letting the stuff in Z affect the stuff in X and Y direction, instead of simply being an equal third of the point, then you will get the kind of trouble you reference. Fake 3D system (aka 2.5D) that used a pseudo Z-axis did run into all kinds of such trouble. This is why letting the skill rank of journeyman modify the actual roll instead of being sharply limited to what can be accomplished, is a red flag for me. Once you start blurring those lines, you probably will get those characteristic troubles, and probably will be better off to collapse back down into the single dimension.

My contention is basically that skills are at a miminum either two or three dimensional. That is, the thing being modeled in its important details are at least two or three dimensional. (Reality, as with many things, must always be somewhat sacrificed to ease of play.) Games like 4E shrink the skill down to one dimension by constraining this universe so that it can be a list, and then by making all kinds of trade-offs. Some of those trades make rather large assumptions about the model and how it will be used that aren't born out in practice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Scaling can include: How effectively you do something, how fast, how you hold up under pressure, how this interacts with other related things, and so forth. When all of that has to scale under a single roll + modifier, you can get some strange results.

If you have a simple system not mainly focused on skills, as are the various versions of D&D, then you can often get away with that. You just simplify to say that time is the same for everyone. And then you decide that the guy with a 20 Dex versus the 10 Dex Trained Acrobatics have no functional difference in balance checks, and it more or less works if you don't squint at it too hard.

But there aren't any good levers to adjust this. If you are wanting more simulation, then there isn't a good, core way to show that some people don't do things well. So you might keep expanding the skill list, but you run into all those problems that we know so well, like the 3E "Use Rope" being rather narrow. You just made the system not so hot for someone who wants it simple and the people who don't care much for simulation focus. If you put in some kind of Burning Wheel type of fate points for skill advancement, you just embedded into the game a dynamic that the non-narrative folks won't care for. You could also just go back to the earlier versions and make this ability checks, or ability checks + gloss, or even DM-fiat. But those systems aren't easy to change in meaningful, stylistic ways, either.

So for things to be easily tweaked, they have to be designed to be easily tweaked. 3E skills are not easily tweaked, and 3.5 and 4E skills aren't much better in this regard.

As for mulltiple ways to be good at something having costs, I agree. But if done full-bore (i.e. not half-heartedly as a sop), then can often be much more transparent and balanced than the single way.

If you want to do a dictionary, you can't get away from the fact that you are talking about words. Every word is a word. A dictionary is merely a giant list. Sure, you can organize, classify, etc. to make it easier to manage. But it is inherently a single thing, and should be modeled as such.

If you want to model a three dimensional grid, it is far easier to do with X, Y, and Z axes. Sure, you could collapse every point onto a line (if the grid is coarse and small enough), and show it as a list. That's how the data from a grid is stored, of course. But a thing that is fundamentally three dimensional is far easier to manage and visualize with the axes.

BTW, if you start letting the stuff in Z affect the stuff in X and Y direction, instead of simply being an equal third of the point, then you will get the kind of trouble you reference. Fake 3D system (aka 2.5D) that used a pseudo Z-axis did run into all kinds of such trouble. This is why letting the skill rank of journeyman modify the actual roll instead of being sharply limited to what can be accomplished, is a red flag for me. Once you start blurring those lines, you probably will get those characteristic troubles, and probably will be better off to collapse back down into the single dimension.

My contention is basically that skills are at a miminum either two or three dimensional. That is, the thing being modeled in its important details are at least two or three dimensional. (Reality, as with many things, must always be somewhat sacrificed to ease of play.) Games like 4E shrink the skill down to one dimension by constraining this universe so that it can be a list, and then by making all kinds of trade-offs. Some of those trades make rather large assumptions about the model and how it will be used that aren't born out in practice.

I'm left feeling a need for more detailed exposition of what you feel are trade offs, compromises and assumptions. Numbers man! I've found that a lot of verbiage can go in theorycraft, but there's a point where rubber meets road, and that is as close to actual play as we can get ourselves.

My feeling is there's one relevant variable, which is "what is the probability that I will succeed at this". We have 'talent' which goes into this in the form of ability score, and we have expertise which factors in as a training bonus. Other misc bonuses could be either one, we don't really know. I would note that talent is not generally something that changes. Mike's system lacks that, or more properly it applies some expertise to the character's skill level, and some will inevitably be applied to the skill bonus. The problem here being you don't really know which of your dimensions is which. My guess is that basically it will devolve down to "big bonuses are levels" and "small bonuses are skill bonuses", and there's nothing profound about that.

As far as "some people don't do some things well", of course you can show that, they have low skill modifiers! That's the beauty of the whole thing. No head scratching, no questions of which knob to twist. We want a linear output "what's my chance to succeed" and we have a series of additive inputs. If it sounds tautological, well it is!

Anyway, I'm interested in what you see as these assumptions and trade-offs. Your in dangerous territory now CJ, I'll dog down every part of this and make it concrete, lol.

 

[dangerous jack]

[...] there is still that provision in there for the person with the higher training to get a bonus to the roll. [...]

Mr. Athletically Inclined has a +4 from Str.
Mr. Trained Swimmer has a +0 from Str.

He has to swim across a (relatively placid but deep) stream. If this is a Novice check, he can do it automatically without rolling. If it is a Journeyman check, he gets to try but with no modifier.

Mr. Athletically Inclined can't even attempt the Journeyman check, or in some ways this ruleset has been presented, even the Novice check.

The way I read it, I don't think there is necessarily an additional numeric bonus for training...

For the Novice swimming check (e.g. across a placid stream): Trained Swimmer does it automatically. Athletically Inclined must roll DC 10 (and gets his +4 bonus)

For the Journeyman swimming check (e.g. in an ocean with moderate waves): Trained Swimmer must roll DC 10 (but has +0 to the roll for 55% success). Athletically Inclined must roll DC 20 because he has Novice rank (25% success).

If you introduce an Expert swimming check (e.g. a fast flowing river): the Trained Swimmer can now do it with a DC 20 (5%), but Athletically Inclined can't do it at all.

I've got to say I really like this line of thinking so far. It could solve the Thief can't climb problem by giving them training in more abilities than the Fighter.

I'm hoping that the degrees of failure would be kept (and expanded to cover more skills). Fail by 5 or less just means the numbers are 5/10/15/20, which are easy to remember and calculate.

 

[keterys]

The easy shortcut for this is if you're mathematically inclined instead of verbiagely... take your stat mod, don't add any half-level or any other nonsense...

Each level of training increases your bonus by 10. The DCs are 10/20/30/40/50.

So the big strong guy with no training (+4) _can't_ make the DC 30 journeyman check, has a chance for the DC 20 Novice check, and is pretty decent at the DC 10 "Yep" check. Meanwhilst, the journeyman with str 10 sits on his +20 and is purty darn good at the DC 10 and DC 20 checks, but still has to roll for the journeyman DC 30

 

[I'm A Banana]

Wait...his favorite thing about the system is something that Circumstance Bonuses and ad-hoc DMing have been doing since the Age of Gygax?

I don't get why he's so in love with something in this new system that seems so basic as "The DM modifies your chances for success based on your interaction with the game world."

I'm not anti-Ability Training, though. It's a nice middle ground between "the ability scores handle everything" and "the skills handle everything."

So, yeah...still not exactly won over. It doesn't seem BAD per se, but it's certainly not my style.

 

[delericho]

Well...

Given last week's column, the proposed mechanic for opposed checks was fairly obvious. That's a good thing - the rules should make sense and it should be possible to derive one bit of the rules from another from first principles. So, good.

However, he's wrong about one thing: he still hasn't boiled everything down to a single mechanic. What he's describing works when one character does something that is directly opposed by another character. Fair enough.

But what about where two characters are doing the same thing, but it's important to know who does it better? For example, how does his system handle an arm wrestling contest? (Obviously, if they have different "name levels" it's easy, but if they're the same?)

I can see two approaches:

1) Both roll, and the higher wins. This makes sense... but you then need two mechanics. The current paradigm actually has the edge here.

2) Both roll. If one succeed and the other fails, we have a winner. But if both succeed or both fail, we have a stalemate and have to reroll. This is also fine, and gives us a single mechanic... but I can see such a system having lots of stalemates, which means that something as simple as an arm wrestling contest could become an epic of dice rolling!

Ultimately, this new skill system is okay... but I don't see it as being any better than what we currently have.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Am arm wrestling contest should have multiple die rolls.

 

[TerraDave]

Like I said last time, a lot of fix for a little problem.

Anyways...I hope at least he is getting some of this feedback.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The easy shortcut for this is if you're mathematically inclined instead of verbiagely... take your stat mod, don't add any half-level or any other nonsense...

Each level of training increases your bonus by 10. The DCs are 10/20/30/40/50.

So the big strong guy with no training (+4) _can't_ make the DC 30 journeyman check, has a chance for the DC 20 Novice check, and is pretty decent at the DC 10 "Yep" check. Meanwhilst, the journeyman with str 10 sits on his +20 and is purty darn good at the DC 10 and DC 20 checks, but still has to roll for the journeyman DC 30

Yeah, which basically shows up that what we really end up with is effectively the old system with much greater spread of DCs and much larger increments of modifiers. I prefer the tighter spread and lower modifiers so you can then have "well, yeah, you can try to cross the wire, but it is a bit windy, is it worth the risk?" vs "Oh, its windy +10 to the DC, forget it."

The virtue is that there are more situations where you have a 100% chance of success, and in people's calculations the difference between 90% and 100% is an important distinction.