Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[delericho]

1. (From SWd20): No fixed synergy bonuses. If you have 5 ranks in a skill that, in a given situation, seems complementary to you and the DM, you get a +2 to the primary skill.

I like this idea.

2. No fixed ability associations. E.g., depending on the situation, sometimes I should be using Cha with Intimidate, and sometimes I should be using Str. The DMG mentions this, but I'd prefer it be made more overt. Spycraft sort of does this.

But I hate this one. Using Str as the modifier for Intimidate checks is my #1 pet peeve. And I have seen very very few instances where any other skill check would be better done with a different stat than that indicated. (I think I once saw a Gather Information check where the primary resource was a library, making Int the appropriate skill. But that was one check, and it's the only one I've actually seen.)

 

[Psion]

Does there need to be a mechanical difference?

For my money, yes.

I don't shell out money for a system to simulate a fantasy world so I pretend that the system is simulating the world. I could do that without buying anything.

 

[Gentlegamer]

For my money, yes.

I don't shell out money for a system to simulate a fantasy world so I pretend that the system is simulating the world. I could do that without buying anything.

It's all in how it's adjudicated. We're not all simulationists . . . so why not provide a flexible system that allows gamists fast pace and allows simulationists to adjudicate it that way if they want? At any rate, it's all pretend anyway, no matter how mechanically specific the rules are.

 

[buzz]

Exactly! In my experience, the more comprehensive rules there are, the more players tend to conceptualize their in game actions in terms of those rules.

"Why didn't you try to trip that orc sneaking past you?"

"I don't have that feat."

You don't need a feat to trip someone.

On top of this, the real answer 99% of the time in any D&D or D&D-derived RPG (such as C&C), is: "Because it's way more effective to just freaking kill the thing."

 

[buzz]

It's all in how it's adjudicated. We're not all simulationists . . . so why not provide a flexible system that allows gamists fast pace and allows simulationists to adjudicate it that way if they want? At any rate, it's all pretend anyway, no matter how mechanically specific the rules are.

Or you could argue: Why not give people a complete ruleset they can subtract from as they please, rather than an incomplete ruleset they, by definition, need to add to in order to run the game at all?

All you're talking about here is preference. Why bog this discussion down in yet another debate about the merits of "lite" vs. "heavy"? All I care about is "good," and I don't think that's going to come from throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Also, your average lover of Gamism is going to want a robust system with meaningful tactical choices. The more floaty and "lite," the more their interest in the system potentially drops.* As for those who crave Sim, it all depends on what and how they're Sim-ing.

* Savage Worlds probably disproves this, though its skill system, IIRC, isn't anywhere near as simple as Mearls' idea or C&C.

 

[buzz]

Another reason why I dislike the Skillsystem at the moment is because it is one of the hardest (and most boring) things to do for an NPC (espacially if you need one quick).

Another point I made on Mearls' blog: this isn't an issue with the skill system; it's an issue with NPC creation. Spycraft has a far more robust skill system than D&D, yet it also has an NPC creation system that makes rolling them up vastly quicker than D&D. I.e., D&D needs that way more than it needs to simplify skills.

 

[Psion]

Another point I made on Mearls' blog: this isn't an issue with the skill system; it's an issue with NPC creation. Spycraft has a far more robust skill system than D&D, yet it also has an NPC creation system that makes rolling them up vastly quicker than D&D. I.e., D&D needs that way more than it needs to simplify skills.

Precisely. It's a matter of focusing the detail where it is desired and needed.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Spycraft has an interesting mechanic here: I think it's called Team Checks.

I kinda like it.

I think that's a lousy idea. It encourages the team to have one really good spotter, and says to everyone else, "Don't even bother trying." With separate skill checks, the less-talented-but-lucky guy can succeed even when the talented-but-apparently-distracted character fails.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Re: Non-standardization of Synergies:

I've never liked this idea, because it brings an aspect of "Mother May I?" back into the rules, in addition to making the bonuses you have written on your character sheet less useful.

A standardized synergy system is far easier to use in play: you've got a +10 next to your Computer Use skill, and you roll that whenever you need to make a Computer Use check. You don't need to run through the list of Knowledges, Professions, Crafts, and other skills each time a CU check is called for to determine which skills the DM will allow a synergy bonus from this time.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think that's a lousy idea. It encourages the team to have one really good spotter, and says to everyone else, "Don't even bother trying."

True--often it'll be a good idea to divide the team up this way. While that's different from normal D&D, I'm not sure that it's worse. In my mind, it makes sense: just as you don't have everyone on the team (including the fighter, the wizard, and the cleric) try to pick a lock, you don't necessarily need everyone on the team to be lookout.

Of course, there are some occasions where individual scores are helpful. If you're infiltrating an enemy compound and team members are separated, communicating by headsets, you wouldn't make team checks; you'd make individual checks.

With separate skill checks, the less-talented-but-lucky guy can succeed even when the talented-but-apparently-distracted character fails.

Again, that's true, but I don't see that as an advantage.

Daniel