Legends & Lore: The Loyal Opposition

[AeroDm]

Well, in 3e, description helps if the DM read the DMG and, if some of this information about describing, had been in the PHB.

Description can give a +2 bonus for searching in the right area.

Describing the exact method needed could grant you automatic success and such description may be required for success. The example given of specific actions is requiring levers throughout the dungeon needing to be manipulated in proper sequence. However, this could, easily, be extended- for example, allow auto success if the player describes removing the cap of the bed post and the DM has placed something inside (Simply mentioning examining the bedpost might only grant a +2 bonus to noticing the scrape marks or the DM could simply point them out. Either way might lead the player to remove the cap of the bedpost).

This general type of rebuttal comes up pretty often--I'm paraphrasing here, but people often argue that a resourceful GM using the rules to their fullest extent wouldn't face the problem the new rule intends to address. Well, of course that's the case. There's no limit to the awesomeness that can be achieved with great GMing and great players. But these fixes are trying to raise "the floor" of the gaming experience. When the GM is tired or flustered or the players are shy or whatever, that is when a rule that gently reminds (in this case demands) creativity and immersion is valuable.

For me, these fixes are worth pursuing. I get tired, sometimes I get upset and make bad calls, sometimes players have off games. I want rules that push me in the right direction when I'm failing and get out of my way when I'm succeeding. A rule that lets me reward immersion after the fact seems pointless--the player is already immersed and being immersed is inherently rewarding.

 

[El Mahdi]

I liked most of the last article (Difficulty Class Warfare), and decided to implement most of it into my houserules. But I'll take a pass on this one. Training an Ability just doesn't make sense to me. If it's training, then it's a Skill. If you "Train" an Ability, then you simply increase the Ability Score. I think this new idea needlessly confuses things, and actually makes resolution (or at least character creation) more complicated instead of less. I don't see how this is an improvement.

It breaks my sense of realism also. In real life, one can do general and specific exercises that can increase an Ability Score (Dex, Str, Con), but that doesn't necessarily make you a trained athlete. Training in an athletic skill is a specialized skill that involves muscle memory and skill in a specific set of talents for expertise, not just generalized increase in an ability. Increasing an ability score will make you generally better in all athletic skills, just as in real life - but it by no means makes you a profesional athlete (swimmer, runner, specific sport player, etc.). Only specialized training in that specific area will make you a professional - and that's skill training.

 

[Anselyn]

I liked most of the last article (Difficulty Class Warfare), and decided to implement most of it into my houserules. But I'll take a pass on this one. Training an Ability just doesn't make sense to me. If it's training, then it's a Skill. If you "Train" an Ability, then you simply increase the Ability Score.

What about "harnessing" your ability - or the potential of the ability.

That's the idea, I think, not represented well by the idea of "training" the ability.

In real life, one can do general and specific exercises that can increase an Ability Score (Dex, Str, Con), but that doesn't necessarily make you a trained athlete. Training in an athletic skill is a specialized skill that involves muscle memory and skill in a specific set of talents for expertise, not just generalized increase in an ability. Increasing an ability score will make you generally better in all athletic skills, just as in real life - but it by no means makes you a profesional athlete (swimmer, runner, specific sport player, etc.). Only specialized training in that specific area will make you a professional - and that's skill training.

On what do you base this? Could it be that your perception of the world comes from game concepts that you have internalised?

My talks with people who have read sports science suggests that initial training quickly allows people to correctly harness their innate ability (STR,DEX, ...). In game/maths terms you go from one side of the bell curve to the other for standard task (so say - 25% to 75% of success). The very game-y thing of having 50% chance of doing something is not how learning something works. You switch from can't to can.

In a related area however, e.g. chess ratings, if two equally skilled people go head-to-head then it's 50/50 on who wins. That's sort of obvious when you think of it but a handy thing to absorb.

 

[Greg K]

It breaks my sense of realism also. In real life, one can do general and specific exercises that can increase an Ability Score (Dex, Str, Con), but that doesn't necessarily make you a trained athlete.

Agreed, I have known several people that are very strong (lift over 300lbs, break down fire doors, etc.) However, if you ask them to climb or jump, they are not going to get very far. Hell, I doubt they could pull up or chin up.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think there are two different things at work here: conditioning versus technique. There is certainly some amount of cross over. If you are conditioned you will have an easier time developing the skill. And they are also complimentary. You need both conditioning and skill to be an effective athlete.

 

[Balesir]

The very fact that this discussion has become about differences in (real) world view seems to me to vindicate my view that "GM fiat" is always a poor way to "store" the Rules of the game. If one person's view of the (game) world is to constitute the "Rules" (or "physics", if you like) of that game world, it is incumbent on that person to share (i.e. write down) those Rules so that all participants may understand what they are. This then becomes a document (or documents) that are generally referred to as "the Rules".

The alternative is that the (game) world be created in play as a gestalt of the world views of all the players - the GM included, if there is one.

The "GM fiat" element is thus what really "turns me off" about these noodled variants.

 

[Anselyn]

it is incumbent on that person to share (i.e. write down) those Rules so that all participants may understand what they are. This then becomes a document (or documents) that are generally referred to as "the Rules".

We cannot write down all the rules of the real world so we cannot write down the rules for your game. Your game cannot exist if it aims to have a rule for everything a character may want to do.

The thing you are describing is a board game. 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.

BTW, as a corollary of my first point. We all exist in the RW without fully understanding its rules - so it's something our characters should be able to cope with too.

 

[Guest 85555]

We cannot write down all the rules of the real world so we cannot write down the rules for your game. Your game cannot exist if it aims to have a rule for everything a character may want to do.

The thing you are describing is a board game. 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.

BTW, as a corollary of my first point. We all exist in the RW without fully understanding its rules - so it's something our characters should be able to cope with too.

This is why I prefer rules light games that establish broad principles which can be applied with some consistency to the majority of situations. I think it is fair to expect some level of consistency in resolving questions of success and failure. But I don't want to bog my play down with too many sub-systems and little rules.

 

[El Mahdi]

What about "harnessing" your ability - or the potential of the ability.

That's the idea, I think, not represented well by the idea of "training" the ability.

Yeah, I think I understand where he (they) were going with this. The concept is sound, but I think the mechanice already exists - Ability training increases the Ability Score. Whether through focused or generalized training, or just accumulated experience, one increases their Ability Score (in other words: standard Ability Increases). Alternatively one could make Feats for Ability Training rather than set Ability Score increases.

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.

I think the main thing driving Mearls concept though, is trying to find a mechanical way to make Ability Checks comparable to or unified with Skill Checks (because Skill Checks have skill ranks, etc., and Ability Checks don't). I think that can be greatly mitigated just by adding character level to the check. There's still a bit of a disparity, but that works for me. Were talking about the difference between using untrained raw talent vs. trained specialized skills for accomplishing a task. Specialized skills will win every time for a specifically related task.

On what do you base this? Could it be that your perception of the world comes from game concepts that you have internalised?

My talks with people who have read sports science suggests that initial training quickly allows people to correctly harness their innate ability (STR,DEX, ...). In game/maths terms you go from one side of the bell curve to the other for standard task (so say - 25% to 75% of success). The very game-y thing of having 50% chance of doing something is not how learning something works. You switch from can't to can.

In a related area however, e.g. chess ratings, if two equally skilled people go head-to-head then it's 50/50 on who wins. That's sort of obvious when you think of it but a handy thing to absorb.

Yeah, we agree on opposed checks. But not on the rest.

For instance, if one does intense training to improve one's general Dexterity - even to the point of achieving Grand Mastery level (Mearls words) with it - that still doesn't make him able to go head to head with Micheal Jordan (who would have Grand Mastery level with Athletics: Basketball), no matter how high he pushes up his general Dexterity Skills. Likewise, somebody doing "Grand Master" level Strength training, is still not going to outswim Micheal Phelps (Grand Master at Athletics: Swim), out drive Tiger Woods (Grand Master at Athletics: Golf - or used to be at least), or out hit Derek Jeter (Grand Master at Athletics: Baseball). Technique is what makes them different from the generalist (and a big part of that is muscle memory).

With Mearls concept, the "Grand Master" Strength or Dexterity generalist would be just as good as the specialist at their specialized skill - and that just doesn't transfer to the real world. By that logic, an All-Pro NFL Wide Reciever should be just as skilled at Basketball as an All-Star NBA Forward - and vice versa - and that just ain't true. The Wide Reciever would be better at basketball than Joe Blow off the street, but would probably get smoked by the NBA player.

However, I can see the logic behind providing a synergy bonus to an applicable Ability check if one is trained in an Athletic skill. So, along with adding level to an Ability check, add a synergy bonus of +2 for each "level" of expertise in the highest trained applicable Athletic skill. For instance, if they are a Grandmaster at Swimming (5 levels: Novice, Journeyman, Expert, Master, and Grand Master) then they'd have a +10 synergy bonus to Strength checks along with a bonus equal to their character level - and still use a unified DC system for Ability checks and Skill checks.

I'll freely admit though, I come at mechanics from more of a simulationist approach than gamist approach. I'm not saying that your approach is gamist - I don't know what your preferred style is - and even if it is gamist, that's cool. I don't have a problem with other styles. My preference however is simulationist, and Mearls idea as presented just doesn't work for me.

 

[Anselyn]

Yeah, we agree on opposed checks. But not on the rest.

For instance, if one does intense training to improve one's general Dexterity - even to the point of achieving Grand Mastery level (Mearls words) with it - that still doesn't make him able to go head to head with Micheal Jordan (who would have Grand Mastery level with Athletics: Basketball), no matter how high he pushes up his general Dexterity Skills. Likewise, somebody doing "Grand Master" level Strength training, is still not going to outswim Micheal Phelps (Grand Master at Athletics: Swim), out drive Tiger Woods (Grand Master at Athletics: Golf - or used to be at least), or out hit Derek Jeter (Grand Master at Athletics: Baseball). Technique is what makes them different from the generalist (and a big part of that is muscle memory).

[...]

I'll freely admit though, I come at mechanics from more of a simulationist approach than gamist approach. I'm not saying that your approach is gamist - I don't know what your preferred style is - and even if it is gamist, that's cool. I don't have a problem with other styles. My preference however is simulationist, and Mearls idea as presented just doesn't work for me.

Actually, I agree with you on this. To clarify, I should have said:

My talks with people who have read sports science suggests that initial training quickly allows people to correctly harness their innate ability (STR,DEX, ...) for a particular application/skill. In game/maths terms you go from one side of the bell curve to the other for standard task (so say - 25% to 75% of success).

So, if you are taught the basics of weightlifting there will be a weight, based on your innate strength, that you will now be able to lift whilst before you couldn't. There won't be a weight you have a 50/50 chance of lifting. I absolutely agree that this won't have changed how far you can for example throw a ball usning your STR.

As for gaming, I'm a professional physicist so in some ways professionally a simulationist - but my gaming is gettting more and more narrativist (ToC, DERPG).