Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kensanata" data-source="post: 3292663" data-attributes="member: 47845">EleganceOh, I am sure that elegance is an important driving force. I'm just trying to avoid an overemphasis on some elements of elegance, such as things pairing up, or being symmetrical.In M20, for example, we have three abilities, four races, four classes, and four skills. Now, is this fact alone a good reason to add a fourth ability? I don't think so. We could have five races (orcs STR+3, MIND-1), or five classes (rangers with Subterfuge +4, no sneak attack, and a free animal companion).And, as I argued above, for a long time the Subterfuge skill has been the only skill my players have used regularly. I'm about to abandon the Knowledge skill, for example, arguing that I will either handwave it because I want my players to remember important facts that will give them an in-game clue right now, or because I want them to roleplay obtaining the knowledge. For example, just roll com+MIND, (or just 1d20 + MIND!) adding an appropriate bonus if trying to make a D&D knowledge check:-5 if asking a villager from a remote village+1 if asking an educated citizen+3 if asking elders+5 if asking a scholar (obviously a level 1 mage, haha)+10 if researching in a library+15 if researching in a library of international reknownI'm not saying that I would like such a system better. I'm still trying to think of something. All I'm saying that elegance alone does not necessarily improves the game.The next question, of course, is what exactly is this "elegance" I keep talking about? It's what I see in Larcen's message. And he was not the first to think in that line, if I remember correctly (although I'd have to search those 24 thread pages to actually find another example):The give-aways are "big hole without […] there would be a void without it […] to round out all the classes / skills […] each having […]" He's basically making an aesthetic argument. And I wanted to say that I'm not buying it on aesthetic reasons alone, without actually taking the time to explain why. I hope this post somewhat delivers what you were expecting.</blockquote>

Verification