Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Thomas Shey]

Yup, we all have different tolerances for this sort of thing. I mostly play and design for fantasy games, but I get the piloting thing. That's one place where I think I'd prefer one skill but with some specializations for the other types of vehicle. I think it matters less for sci-fi than it does for modern settings. I think in sci-fi setting you can assume a broader familiarity with different kinds of vehicle more easily.

I dunno, man. Unless you just assume all the vehicles are mostly operating themselves, you're going to still have cases where, say, someone who's only driven four-wheel vehicles is going to be pretty hopeless trying to drive a motorcycle, and there's no reason because its an SF setting that driving both is something everyone can ce assumed to do.

(That said, I'm getting ready to run Eclipse Phase which assumes fairly broad skills with specializations that make you a little better in them, so I'm fanatical about it).

But yeah, splitting/lumping does fundamentally come down to a matter of perception and taste. There's no obviously right answer (though some genres and tones can suggest more appropriate ones).

 

[JohnSnow]

Roll under is still, by definition, "big number good" -- especially if Price Is Right rules apply.

Let's say my target number is 11. If I'm understanding your "Price is Right" analogy correctly, you're saying that an 11 is better than a 10, which is fine, but it's a finicky choice for me to think that an 11 is "better" than a 12+.

You are free to think it's not rational: I know it's not. But don't tell me that roll under doesn't violate "big number good."

And on any roll under system, it's also trivially simple to fix. Simply subtract the skill value from the max value of the dice: ONCE. Now it's "roll over."

 

[Reynard]

Let's say my target number is 11. If I'm understanding your "Price is Right" analogy correctly, you're saying that an 11 is better than a 10, which is fine, but it's a finicky choice for me to think that an 11 is "better" than a 12+.

You are free to think it's not rational: I know it's not. But don't tell me that roll under doesn't violate "big number good."

And on any roll under system, it's also trivially simple to fix. Simply subtract the skill value from the max value of the dice: ONCE. Now it's "roll over."

You are certainly allowed to like what you like, rational or otherwise.

 

[Fenris-77]

I dunno, man. Unless you just assume all the vehicles are mostly operating themselves, you're going to still have cases where, say, someone who's only driven four-wheel vehicles is going to be pretty hopeless trying to drive a motorcycle, and there's no reason because its an SF setting that driving both is something everyone can ce assumed to do.

(That said, I'm getting ready to run Eclipse Phase which assumes fairly broad skills with specializations that make you a little better in them, so I'm fanatical about it).

But yeah, splitting/lumping does fundamentally come down to a matter of perception and taste. There's no obviously right answer (though some genres and tones can suggest more appropriate ones).

I think the argument for sci-fi there is pretty clear. A lot of sci-fi settings have a lot of different kinds of vehicles, more even than modern settings. The genre examples we have for sci-fi also seem to mostly assume broad competency with the main division being starships and other, which I think is fine. I don't need even more piloting skills to cover all the possible sci-fi vehicles, thanks very much. Some people might, which is fine, but I don't. I do think there's a realism argument to made about it.

You can make a realism argument (of a kind) about modern settings, but personally I still don't care much except for possibly all other vehicles on one hand and planes on the other. I don't see the value in gating motorcycle riding or piloting a boat at a basic level of competency for most games. Others might, of course, but I do not. I have the same feeling for super-granular firearms skill sets and super-granular academic skill sets. I simply don't see the value for the kinds of games I want to run. That's not to say that no granularity there is better, I think there's always a middle ground, but I'll usually take concision over skill multiplication.

 

[Reynard]

Not that this thread hasn't already drifted, but I think skill granularity is well out of the scope of "core mechanics."

 

[Bill Zebub]

(snip)

It only got down so far into fine detail, but if you described what was going on in non-mechanical (but still descriptive) terms, it'd fit reasonably well what I'd expect to see happen.

So I don't think I can follow you calling them all a "joke".

Micah and I were talking about this elsewhere. I said something about inventing a mechanic and then slapping a label on it, and Micah responded that he didn't think it was usually done that way.

What I thought about, but never went back to write, is that I didn't actually think think it was done in that order, either, but it could be. Meaning that in a lot of games you could take a mechanic like dodge, or parry, or deflect, or block, or slip, etc., and take the mechanic associated with that move and apply it to one of those other labels. E.g, imposing Disadvantage on an attack could make an equally good Dodge or Parry or Block. But they are not all the same thing. Which, to me, means it's not really a simulation of that specific move (let alone the dozens of variations of each one of those moves) but a general "make it harder to hit me".

I'm seeing appeals to authority around various martial arts that I don't know. The only one I've practiced is boxing, and even without weapons (or kicks, or elbows, or wrestling moves...) it's still incomparably more complex than any pencil & paper combat system.

Using an analogy to video games and flying a plane, RPG combat isn't a flight simulator. It's Defender.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not that this thread hasn't already drifted, but I think skill granularity is well out of the scope of "core mechanics."

I don't. Skills are pretty obviously the core mechanic of BRP games, as opposed to stats.

 

[Reynard]

I don't. Skills are pretty obviously the core mechanic of BRP games, as opposed to stats.

They are the primary implementation of the core mechanic.

 

[Fenris-77]

They are the primary implementation of the core mechanic.

So that makes them fair game here, I think. You don't roll stats much in BRP games nearly as often as you roll skills. It's really not my favorite kind of system, but I think we're still colouring inside the lines.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't. Skills are pretty obviously the core mechanic of BRP games, as opposed to stats.

In general I'm not into skill systems....I love how Shadowdark handles it...but if there are going to be skills then I like that system to be unified with combat, instead of treating them entirely differently. In other words, skills should be a "core mechanic" and not something bolted on. (Looking at you, D&D...).

It's one of the things I like about Dragonbane: my Swords skill works exactly like my Bushcraft works exactly like my spellcasting skill. So are dodging and blocking. And progression in all those skills is the leveling.