Legends & Lore: The Loyal Opposition

[prosfilaes]

I believe RPGs are intrinsically different as they have the DM not as an opposing player but as an interpreter of how to deal with all the options the players can think of beyond a list of rule-sanctioned moves.

Look up Kriegsspiel. What you're describing is a characteristic of those. So hardly something intrinsic to RPGs.

Not really; in Kriegsspiel you have a list of rule-sanctioned moves, that just happen to be a little too complex to implement in a board game. The referee never has to do anything a computer or really complex automaton couldn't do.

 

[Droogie]

I think the "potential" of an ability is already quantified by the Ability Score (or more specifically, the bonus for the specified Ability Score). Adding ranks to it is just an extra layer of complication that to me, doesn't add anything and is less realistic. Want to change the potential of an Ability, then change the Ability Score. Seems much simpler to me and still accomplishes the same thing.

This is my main issue. If what Mearls finally comes up with in 5e ends up being more fiddly and not less, I will be kinda disappointed.

For a good example of how player tasks live in the ability scores rather than skills, I like the way Green Ronin's Dragon Age does it. One of your ability scores increases every level, and a "focus" (skill) gives you a flat +2 bonus in a particular task.
A player with a Dex of 2 gets a +2 to their stealth rolls (on 3d6), whereas a player with a focus in stealth gets a +4. Some tasks require a focus depending on the situation: "Cunning(arcane lore required)".

 

[Jhaelen]

For a good example of how player tasks live in the ability scores rather than skills, I like the way Green Ronin's Dragon Age does it. One of your ability scores increases every level, and a "focus" (skill) gives you a flat +2 bonus in a particular task.
A player with a Dex of 2 gets a +2 to their stealth rolls (on 3d6), whereas a player with a focus in stealth gets a +4. Some tasks require a focus depending on the situation: "Cunning(arcane lore required)".

That's not _that_ different from what 4e already does. Every class uses (at least) one primary ability and (at least) one secondary ability. About every four levels you get two increase two ability scores, and more often than not it's exactly these two.

What I'd like to see is different: Stop using ability scores. Go the way of WoD and do what Mr. Mearls suggested to do for skills: Just rate them at one of (about) five levels of expertise and allow them to be freely combined with skills when making checks. If there's no appropriate skill for a task use two abilities or double one ability.

 

[Mark CMG]

What I'd like to see is different: Stop using ability scores. Go the way of WoD and do what Mr. Mearls suggested to do for skills: Just rate them at one of (about) five levels of expertise and allow them to be freely combined with skills when making checks. If there's no appropriate skill for a task use two abilities or double one ability.

This seems contradictory in that it asks players to ignore Ability Scores in the resolution of tasks that clearly have their basis in Ability Scores even if they are not in use for the skill system per se but then to rely on the Ability Scores in situations that the skilled task resolution system fails to cover.

 

[Sammael]

What I'd like to see is different: Stop using ability scores. Go the way of WoD and do what Mr. Mearls suggested to do for skills: Just rate them at one of (about) five levels of expertise and allow them to be freely combined with skills when making checks. If there's no appropriate skill for a task use two abilities or double one ability.

I am very much in favor of this approach (and it's close to what I'm using for my own system), but that's not what Mearls is suggesting.