Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5663888" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'm left feeling a need for more detailed exposition of what you feel are trade offs, compromises and assumptions. Numbers man! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification