Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 1757572" data-attributes="member: 12332">By contrive I meant that, as an M&amp;M DM, am I supposed to use ONLY those skills that PC X decided to take, knowing that, as a limitation of the system, we'll have &quot;Super Science Guy&quot; with +15 in all Int skills, while I cannot, under any circumstances, introduce a situation calling for a Drive check (for instance) if I have no PCs playing Super Dex characters with +15 in all Dex skills.As a GM I'm very well versed in playing to the varied abilities of the PCs at the table.&nbsp; As a D20 Modern GM, however, I'm also quite used to being able to design with an eye toward variety and, often, unexpected variety.&nbsp; Drive, Hide, Research, etc, surprising those PCs who placed a few ranks in those skills for the sake of flavor or background interest.&nbsp; At 1:1 there's no real motivation for those sorts of checks beyond &quot;being known for&quot; skill checks or having the predictability of planning sessions around only those skills which one player found important enough to his PC concept to include in the game.In other, non-point-based systems, you will end up with ____ number of skill points, even if it is a small number, they are there and they need to be spent in some way.&nbsp; &quot;But I'm not going to use any skills often!&nbsp; Can't I trade those in for 2 points of BAB or another rank in Absorption?&quot;&nbsp; Nope, there they are, use them.&nbsp; And so you add them to skills based on your PC background and interests and I can sneak in as a theif in the night and suddenly the 3 points you &quot;dumped&quot; into Profession: Bouncer becomes an aspect of the campaign.At 1:1 in M&amp;M if you've spent 3-4 precious PP on a skill, I, as the GM, had darnwell better USE that skill at SOME point to validate that choice for the player or, next time, he'll use those 3-4 points on another rank of BAB and get some USE outta it.&nbsp; So then, skills, become a PRESCRIPTION for me as the GM.&nbsp; I'm arm-bent into moving in to use those skills because if I don't they're useless and if they're useless they could have been &quot;better&quot; spent somewhere else in the PC make-up.&nbsp; In Modern, for instance, you spend those 3 points on Prof: Bouncer because it's there and seemed right and when I use it, it's enjoyably unexpected.&nbsp; Had it never come up, that player would have been equally happy bashing along with his powerhouse, not complaining that I let him &quot;waste&quot; those skill points.Aspects like that are, really, why I've classically stayed AWAY from point-based games and have embraced flexible-class games like Grim Tales, because point-based PCs either become horribly predictable or become an exercise in predeterminism for the GM, where I MUST use every aspect of every PC to VALIDATE doing anything other than twinked out predictable builds.&nbsp; --fje</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HeapThaumaturgist, post: 1757572, member: 12332"] By contrive I meant that, as an M&M DM, am I supposed to use ONLY those skills that PC X decided to take, knowing that, as a limitation of the system, we'll have "Super Science Guy" with +15 in all Int skills, while I cannot, under any circumstances, introduce a situation calling for a Drive check (for instance) if I have no PCs playing Super Dex characters with +15 in all Dex skills. As a GM I'm very well versed in playing to the varied abilities of the PCs at the table. As a D20 Modern GM, however, I'm also quite used to being able to design with an eye toward variety and, often, unexpected variety. Drive, Hide, Research, etc, surprising those PCs who placed a few ranks in those skills for the sake of flavor or background interest. At 1:1 there's no real motivation for those sorts of checks beyond "being known for" skill checks or having the predictability of planning sessions around only those skills which one player found important enough to his PC concept to include in the game. In other, non-point-based systems, you will end up with ____ number of skill points, even if it is a small number, they are there and they need to be spent in some way. "But I'm not going to use any skills often! Can't I trade those in for 2 points of BAB or another rank in Absorption?" Nope, there they are, use them. And so you add them to skills based on your PC background and interests and I can sneak in as a theif in the night and suddenly the 3 points you "dumped" into Profession: Bouncer becomes an aspect of the campaign. At 1:1 in M&M if you've spent 3-4 precious PP on a skill, I, as the GM, had darnwell better USE that skill at SOME point to validate that choice for the player or, next time, he'll use those 3-4 points on another rank of BAB and get some USE outta it. So then, skills, become a PRESCRIPTION for me as the GM. I'm arm-bent into moving in to use those skills because if I don't they're useless and if they're useless they could have been "better" spent somewhere else in the PC make-up. In Modern, for instance, you spend those 3 points on Prof: Bouncer because it's there and seemed right and when I use it, it's enjoyably unexpected. Had it never come up, that player would have been equally happy bashing along with his powerhouse, not complaining that I let him "waste" those skill points. Aspects like that are, really, why I've classically stayed AWAY from point-based games and have embraced flexible-class games like Grim Tales, because point-based PCs either become horribly predictable or become an exercise in predeterminism for the GM, where I MUST use every aspect of every PC to VALIDATE doing anything other than twinked out predictable builds. --fje [/QUOTE]

Verification