Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[Crazy Jerome]

As a quick hack, I've wondered if 4e would be improved if all characters had a fixed ability modifier for attack rolls in their primary class (or classes in a hybrid design), while damage bonuses, effect bonuses and multi-class attacks depended on the ability scores as normal.

A slightly different version of the same idea is that the bonus to hit from ability scores don't stack with anything else. Depending upon how you then scale abilities and provide options for other ways to become "highly skilled," you get an interesting dynamic as characters decide whether to "outgrow" their natural talent or not. If it is going to take you, say, three feats to develop your Athletics skill enough to beat out your Athletics talent, you might decide not to.

You'd have to be careful with ability scaling, though.

 

[Mark CMG]

The border between opaque motivations of design and transparent or opaque effects on gameplay depends on how you look at it.

Just by acknowledging a border you have come closer to understanding my own position.

I'd say that some of the effects on gameplay are transparent, but the whole point of "emergent" properties is that they aren't immediately transparent before they are useful.

Emergent properties are either a byproduct of how subsystems interact or result from rules applied to various components and the combination(s) of the interactions with regard to the overall results. Predicting byproducts is tricky and often incomplete, planning for specific combined interactions is part of the design process. This is not new. In the case of the former, transparency results for the end user when they can recognize what was foreseen and what was not. In the case of the latter, the rules should be upfront about the planned interactions so that the effects can be understood by the end user of the game. An end user might not need to know the motivations behind the creation process (though I think it is helpful if elucidated) but mechanics and emergent mechanics that are a result of rules application should be clear within the rules, if the designer understands what those emergent properties will be.

As for the six basic attributes or variations thereof, any simple design will be somewhat transparent. It can't be anything else. OTOH, I'd say that any more complicated design that works with the simple design, solves the relevant issues, and isn't simply two or three compatible systems bolted together (wth Balesir's caveats noted)--will necessarily have some complicated design underneath--regardless of how well it hides this complication in play and on the obvious effects. It will have emergent properties.

You're lumping design motivations with effects from rules application together in your assertion that a complex system will necessarily be opaque in its process. I disagree for reasons stated above in this post.

If one could achieve this goal soley with existing traditional design elements, someone would have by now. An assertion, I know.

You seem to be implying there is something new afoot in the design blogs where some of us are seeing misinterpretation of the tradtional elements (see rogueattorney's post and my previous post regarding ability score uses) being used as claim to new insights while presenting nothing innovative, something you imply by claiming mature design though I am not suggesting that it is claimed in the article(s) nor that it is or is not a goal of this process. To me, this echoes the design idea behind stripping PC opponents of anything the designer felt was not germane to what could be used or accomplished in a single combat encounter. It misunderstood the reasoning behind having mutlifaceted opponents in favor of rather bland, IMO, cookie-cutter opponents which produce the grind that many games have come to recognize. The design motivation seems to have been ease of play and encounter creation but the resultant, emergent properties in gameplay are generally less desirable. Having occasional opponents be one-dimensional but exteremely effective in their arena is interesting but having most opponents one-dimensional and then countering that planned effect by combining a variety of one-dimensional opponents is a poor substitute for encountering a variety of multifaceted opponents. It might serve the design goal, and the result might be just as expected, but longterm effect on the play experience seems to wear thin.

 

[Mark CMG]

Making the ability scores super-important works only at low levels (1-5) and then only in extremely low-magic games (which Mearls is obviously fond of, given his Iron Heroes legacy).

I am much more in favor of a nice, streamlined (and somewhat abstract) skill system (which is why I built one), since I am a big proponent of the fact that ability scores should only matter until a character becomes learned enough to be able to overcome (or improve upon) his or her heritage.

All in all, a completely wrong turn in the thinking, AFAIC.

If all challenges need to scale with level, that might be true that the ability scores are only important at lower levels. But if one separates challenges that can be affected by abilities alone as well as of challenges where an ability can be used without a skill, if that skill is not possessed, from challenges that can be affected by abilties combined with skills, then this is no longer as simple. Granted there is one design approach that, in the name of balance and scalability, relegates the usefulness of ability scores to the province of lower levels in some game systems but this is not an absolute for game design.

 

[Sammael]

But if one separates challenges that can be affected by abilities alone as well as of challenges where an ability can be used without a skill, if that skill is not possessed, from challenges that can be affected by abilties combined with skills, then this is no longer as simple.

Vanilla 3.x had very few pure ability checks. Likewise, since every character could purchase cross-class skills (let's forget about the nonsensical and rarely enforced "exclusive" skills in 3.0) and attempt untrained skill checks (for the most part), this was not a big deal. 4E's mechanic of adding 1/2 level to all checks (both ability and skill checks) is a step in the right direction, since it gives everyone a chance of succeeding that does not rely on ability alone (and takes into account passive learning).

I am biased, of course, since my own system revision does away with pure ability checks. Every check has an associated skill, and characters gain a "base bonus" to all skills (I started with level /2 but toned it down to level / 4 after playtest) as a measure of overall progress.

 

[TerraDave]

I'd love a system that works sorta like one Old School Hack I played, where you have stats that affect your non-combat skills, but your attack bonus and damage rolls are completely unmodified by ability scores. A fighter hits things well, and it doesn't matter if he's a fast fighter, a strong fighter, or a smart fighter. He'll always have attack bonus +X and damage modifier +Y.

In a 5e-or-whatever ruleset, his ability scores might modify what weapons he's good with, what special attacks he can use, and what skills he can weave into combat (acrobatics, athletics, surgical precision, bluffing, etc.). But stop forcing players to design specific types of characters if they want to be able to hit things.

If I want to play a 4 Wisdom cleric whom the gods really like even though he's a terrible priest, and if the GM's okay with that character, why should the rules inhibit it?

But this begs the question...why play a fighter that is clumsy and weak? Or turn it around, your "smart" fighter is a crack duelist and shot with a bow, but can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

Now, if you want to get rid of abilities all togther, or have them modify things in a different way, that is another story...

 

[Mark CMG]

Vanilla 3.x had very few pure ability checks. Likewise, since every character could purchase cross-class skills (let's forget about the nonsensical and rarely enforced "exclusive" skills in 3.0) and attempt untrained skill checks (for the most part), this was not a big deal. 4E's mechanic of adding 1/2 level to all checks (both ability and skill checks) is a step in the right direction, since it gives everyone a chance of succeeding that does not rely on ability alone (and takes into account passive learning).

I am biased, of course, since my own system revision does away with pure ability checks. Every check has an associated skill, and characters gain a "base bonus" to all skills (I started with level /2 but toned it down to level / 4 after playtest) as a measure of overall progress.

I'll continue posting in the abstract, system-neutral, if you will and say that passive learning is not always applicable. So, too, allow me to add in to my above post that a system that allows all abilities to potentially have the same skill level cap and/or allows any skill to be gained in parallel with other skills, as if they were all skills that could be equally mastered by anyone, might be missing something in the design.

 

[Sammael]

I'll continue posting in the abstract, system-neutral, if you will and say that passive learning is not always applicable. So, too, allow me to add in to my above post that a system that allows all abilities to potentially have the same skill level cap and/or allows any skill to be gained in parallel with other skills, as if they were all skills that could be equally mastered by anyone, might be missing something in the design.

Re: passive learning - I agree, but I also think that the number of instances where passive learning is applicable far outnumbers the number of instances where it isn't, which is why I'm in favor of passive learning in general.

As a quick sidenote, 3.x had passive learning as well, in the form of BAB - which was - really - nothing more than another skill with slightly wonky rules.

As for the skill level cap and "equal opportunity" skills, again, I agree - in a class-based system, not all classes should have the opportunity to advance all skills equally, and the "cap" should differ.

I'll step out of system neutrality here for a sec - under my system, a 20th level mage would likely have a +17 bonus on the Arcana skill (10 ranks, +5 base bonus, +2 competence), whereas a 20th level fighter would only have the +5 base bonus (to reflect passive learning - after all, having seen the motions used to cast fireball so many times, the fighter was bound to learn to recognize them by then; it doesn't mean that he can cast spells). If you add abilities to skills, the difference becomes even greater. But the 20th level fighter will likely be able to recognize a magic mouth for what it is...

 

[KidSnide]

I'd love a system that works sorta like one Old School Hack I played, where you have stats that affect your non-combat skills, but your attack bonus and damage rolls are completely unmodified by ability scores. A fighter hits things well, and it doesn't matter if he's a fast fighter, a strong fighter, or a smart fighter. He'll always have attack bonus +X and damage modifier +Y.

In a 5e-or-whatever ruleset, his ability scores might modify what weapons he's good with, what special attacks he can use, and what skills he can weave into combat (acrobatics, athletics, surgical precision, bluffing, etc.). But stop forcing players to design specific types of characters if they want to be able to hit things.

If I want to play a 4 Wisdom cleric whom the gods really like even though he's a terrible priest, and if the GM's okay with that character, why should the rules inhibit it?

But this begs the question...why play a fighter that is clumsy and weak? Or turn it around, your "smart" fighter is a crack duelist and shot with a bow, but can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

Now, if you want to get rid of abilities all togther, or have them modify things in a different way, that is another story...

You can create any number of justifications for this type of character. A weak, arthritic fighter could be an elderly master of a forgotten fighting style, and there are tons of examples in westerns where the clumsy drunk is the deadliest shot in the west. Young and naive clerics and idiot savant wizards are also classics of the genre.

You can legitimately question whether these character types are realistic. (I have it on good authority that small, elderly martial arts masters go flying when they are kicked in the chest by larger, younger martial arts masters.) In a more "realistic" game, a GM might want to limit characters that are exceptionally poor in the relevant areas. However, these are clearly legitimate concepts for a large number of games. I don't see why the rules should keep them from being playable.

-KS

 

[Mark CMG]

Re: passive learning - I agree, but I also think that the number of instances where passive learning is applicable far outnumbers the number of instances where it isn't, which is why I'm in favor of passive learning in general.

I would think just the opposite, in that passive learning is situational. I can learn to swim by being in the water even without a teacher and I can learn from a teacher (formal or otherwise) even away from the water, but without the opportunity for either I don't believe I can become a better swimmer just by occasionally thinking or not even thinking about swimming while walking around doing other things. If I take any given game session and consider how many typical skills come into play, where someone could learn by trial and error or through instruction or even watching another make attempts with a given skill, the list is quite short. Opportunities for passive learning neither seem to abound nor be prevalent but are seemingly rather rare.

As for the skill level cap and "equal opportunity" skills, again, I agree - in a class-based system, not all classes should have the opportunity to advance all skills equally, and the "cap" should differ.

Tying skills to class is also problematic in many ways.

I'll step out of system neutrality here for a sec (. . .)

Better to say continue outside . . ? Nothing wrong with it as it has helped us comminucate but your posts have been regarding specific systems or your own additions to them. Again, that's all good because it has certainly helped me understand your points.

- under my system, a 20th level mage would likely have a +17 bonus on the Arcana skill (10 ranks, +5 base bonus, +2 competence), whereas a 20th level fighter would only have the +5 base bonus (to reflect passive learning - after all, having seen the motions used to cast fireball so many times, the fighter was bound to learn to recognize them by then; it doesn't mean that he can cast spells). If you add abilities to skills, the difference becomes even greater. But the 20th level fighter will likely be able to recognize a magic mouth for what it is...

I don't see that as enough secondhand experience to gain anything in that regard, let alone nearly a third (if I read you right) of the ability of a master just by being in the room, so to speak. If I pick up a few words of a foreign language spoken by a neighbor couple (mind you this is passive, without looking words up in books or asking the neighbors their meaning, simply by hearing them and only sometimes with any context), I would think that negligible relative to even being able to get by in their homeland.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm a cynical suspicious SOB sometimes, so I'll ask this now: could this series of Mearls articles possibly be a smokescreen? He's certainly got people talking here and elsewhere about what he's been writing, and that's good...but what is it that we're *not* looking at?

That said, my previous forecast (see various other threads since about last fall-winter) remains in place.

In the 1974 rules, the three abilities tied to the three classes (strength - fighting-man, intelligence - magic-user, and wisdom - cleric) mainly gave you experience point bonuses. (The exception was that intelligence also determined how many languages your character spoke.)

The other three ability scores gave you assorted bonuses that anyone familiar with subsequent editions of D&D should be acquainted with, Con gave you hit point bonus, Dex gave you missile fire bonus, and nearly two pages were given over to Charisma's effect on npc reactions and morale.

And in 1e and 2e extreme ability scores gave (or took away, there were penalties too) other things as well e.g. saving throw modifiers (Int, Wis, Dex, Con, rarely Cha), to-hit/damage modifiers (Str), and so forth.

Strange that he'd miss this.

Lan-"having ability scores tied to lots of other things is only a problem if said scores constantly change"-efan