Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls: Abilities as the core?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5612366" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Scope of abilities/skills/powers etc. (There may be more, but scope is definitely an issue to solve.)</p><p> </p><p>For sake of argument, in the simple version, say that Cha covers all the social skills, Dex covers all the sneaking and lockpicking, etc. (I know there are holes there. Work with me, and assume they are handled well enough. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). </p><p> </p><p>Then you layer the skills on top of this as an option. In the traditional model, you've got to divide scope into smaller pieces. This can, of course, be done well enough to get by, if you don't look at it very close. But you will make compromises. The problem is, in such a system, you want <strong>multiple</strong> options. And ideally, you want people to pick some options without prerequisites. (A handful may have prerequisites, again for those inevitable compromises, but most of them should not.) If people are going to the trouble to layer complexity on top of a base system, they want to layer their preferred complexity, not yours.</p><p> </p><p>Hero System and GURPs are two ways out of this--but both are built on the idea that the options are all there, and you limit yourself to the ones that matter. There isn't really a "simple" system that is playable by itself. (Actually there is, but it isn't replicated in print--not even in the "lite" versions of both rules. The core is simpler than is printed. There was discussion between Hero 4th and 5th editions of building on this version, and some people suggested that such a Hero would be built on no more than 4 or 5 effects.)</p><p> </p><p>Moreover, if scope is addressed in this way, you radically compromise your ability to convey the mechanics of source material and adventures. </p><p> </p><p>My theory--utterly untested by professional game designers thus far, at least in public <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />--is that the way out of this is through multiple dimensions of character abilities affecting task or conflict resolution, but <strong>not</strong> as derived abilities. It is the derived part that causes the design to either screw up the scope or screw up the math.</p><p> </p><p>For example, go back to Charisma as social again, as base. Instead of skills dividing this up, or feats adding on, or whatever--you always use Charisma for the base roll--no matter how many options you use. If you are using the simple version, then that roll is it--much like skill rolls are now. If you are using skills or feats or both, then those things add <strong>different</strong> mechanics that complicate the resolution, but not the roll.</p><p> </p><p>Perhaps skills are focused on addressing sim issues. So if you use the skill option, you are explicitly invoking sim. Skills becomes things you train to do things that not everyone can do, still using your base Cha. "Diplomats" use charisma to negotiate when formal language and protocols are required. Maybe feats are about changing the grounds of the rolls by situation. If you are a "fast talker", you can use Cha rolls faster than normal. (You could just as easily do this the other way around, where the feat "Diplomat" handled special sim cases and the skill Fast Talking modified some situations. It might even be better than the first way, depending on the mechanics.)</p><p> </p><p>In such a model, "races" should be largely replaced by "culture" as a mechanically significant dimension. Being a dwarf doesn't mean much, except perhaps for a few racial benefits that are largely static. Being a dwarf raised under the Granite Mountains, as part of the stonemasons guild, however, exerts some mechanically meaningful heft.</p><p> </p><p>I quite happily admit that this is all mostly theoretical, beyond some practical, mostly failed, home brew system work I've been flirting with for several years now. But I don't see any other way out of the scope issue. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5612366, member: 54877"] Scope of abilities/skills/powers etc. (There may be more, but scope is definitely an issue to solve.) For sake of argument, in the simple version, say that Cha covers all the social skills, Dex covers all the sneaking and lockpicking, etc. (I know there are holes there. Work with me, and assume they are handled well enough. ;)). Then you layer the skills on top of this as an option. In the traditional model, you've got to divide scope into smaller pieces. This can, of course, be done well enough to get by, if you don't look at it very close. But you will make compromises. The problem is, in such a system, you want [B]multiple[/B] options. And ideally, you want people to pick some options without prerequisites. (A handful may have prerequisites, again for those inevitable compromises, but most of them should not.) If people are going to the trouble to layer complexity on top of a base system, they want to layer their preferred complexity, not yours. Hero System and GURPs are two ways out of this--but both are built on the idea that the options are all there, and you limit yourself to the ones that matter. There isn't really a "simple" system that is playable by itself. (Actually there is, but it isn't replicated in print--not even in the "lite" versions of both rules. The core is simpler than is printed. There was discussion between Hero 4th and 5th editions of building on this version, and some people suggested that such a Hero would be built on no more than 4 or 5 effects.) Moreover, if scope is addressed in this way, you radically compromise your ability to convey the mechanics of source material and adventures. My theory--utterly untested by professional game designers thus far, at least in public :p--is that the way out of this is through multiple dimensions of character abilities affecting task or conflict resolution, but [B]not[/B] as derived abilities. It is the derived part that causes the design to either screw up the scope or screw up the math. For example, go back to Charisma as social again, as base. Instead of skills dividing this up, or feats adding on, or whatever--you always use Charisma for the base roll--no matter how many options you use. If you are using the simple version, then that roll is it--much like skill rolls are now. If you are using skills or feats or both, then those things add [B]different[/B] mechanics that complicate the resolution, but not the roll. Perhaps skills are focused on addressing sim issues. So if you use the skill option, you are explicitly invoking sim. Skills becomes things you train to do things that not everyone can do, still using your base Cha. "Diplomats" use charisma to negotiate when formal language and protocols are required. Maybe feats are about changing the grounds of the rolls by situation. If you are a "fast talker", you can use Cha rolls faster than normal. (You could just as easily do this the other way around, where the feat "Diplomat" handled special sim cases and the skill Fast Talking modified some situations. It might even be better than the first way, depending on the mechanics.) In such a model, "races" should be largely replaced by "culture" as a mechanically significant dimension. Being a dwarf doesn't mean much, except perhaps for a few racial benefits that are largely static. Being a dwarf raised under the Granite Mountains, as part of the stonemasons guild, however, exerts some mechanically meaningful heft. I quite happily admit that this is all mostly theoretical, beyond some practical, mostly failed, home brew system work I've been flirting with for several years now. But I don't see any other way out of the scope issue. :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls: Abilities as the core?
Top