Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[Lanefan]

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?

Because it is easier to add than to subtract. If something is presented in the rules people will assume it to be carved in stone, andexpect to be able to use it; and conflict arises when a DM says "no". But if it's not there in any way other than a DM's guideline (i.e. in the DMG, ot the PH), and the DM says "yes", everyone ends up happier...including the DM who would have said "no" as s/he's been spared the grief.

Lanefan

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

As a player, I'd rather have flexibility built in to the rules allowing my player creativity to be an asset, rather than the rules dictating that since I don't have the "right" combo of skills, I'm not eligible for a synergy bonus.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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?

For a roleplaying game I utterly reject the notion that there is such a thing as an "incomplete ruleset," unless you mean something like the SRD which doesn't have the rules for advancing characters (and no guidelines are given).

Adding to a system is much, much easier (preference-wise) than subtracting from a system that is as tightly systematized as d20. For example, considerations of tactical/miniatures combat is now so firmly intertwined throughout the system that those who don't want to use tactical combat cannot remove it without essentially rewritting the system. What matters in a rpg is the game result as a matter of adjudication (in this context of skills, stunts, etc). That's the base upon which other layers of consideration can be build (simulationists, etc.).

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.

I find it curious that while you care about "good" you're also seem to disregard that the "fewer/broader skills" issue we are discussing is just as "good" at doing what is intended: providing a system for skills. The disagreement is on what is "good" in the skill system: simulationists want more minute differentiations build into the rules, while others just want a system for adjudication the basic results (i.e. the hawk and bat example).

Also, your average lover of Gamism is going to want a robust system with meaningful tactical choices.

I also reject the term "robust" used in this context: it is meaningless at best and loaded at worst, similar to "progressive" in the political context.

 

[Psion]

I also reject the term "robust" used in this context

Why? Because it casts a feature you don't care for in a game in a positive context, and we aren't allowed to discuss our preferences in games without use of terms that frame the argument to your preference like "bloated"?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Why? Because it casts a feature you don't care for in a game in a positive context, and we aren't allowed to discuss our preferences in games without use of terms that frame the argument to your preference like "bloated"?

I reject the term "bloated" in this context, as well. I reject all the normative terms in this context. They aren't useful to the discussion and only serve to antagonize others by creating characterizations based on taste preferences.

 

[BryonD]

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.

The Spycraft genre also assumes the extreme case of specialist PCs. So, imo, it works a lot better in that setting than in a fantasy one.

 

[BryonD]

I reject the term "bloated" in this context, as well. I reject all the normative terms in this context. They aren't useful to the discussion and only serve to antagonize others by creating characterizations based on taste preferences.

Making a show of "rejecting" buzzwords while talking about thing like "rules dictating" is just nothign more than trying to have it both ways.

I reject your rejection and completely endorse that a robust rule system is worthy of much credit. A good GM knows how to keep from being controlled by any rule set and a bad GM just becomes worse in a ruleset without a good guide system.

Yes, a good GM can run a good game with any reasonable system. Heck, I'm certain I could run a decent game with no system at all, just sitting around with my friends describing who the characters are and what actions occur. But you can not give the game mechanics credit for the GM's doing. When you are talking about a good system for the gaming community at large, you must keep that context in mind.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Villain classes, perhaps?

And speaking of IH: I think that the challenges, zones, stunts, and tokens don't "step on each other's toes" any more than do the vast array of spells, magic items, PrCs, and similar options do in 3.5. Moreover, Most of the IH abilities are available to any PC at any time, and thus cut down on the complexity of build decisions and prep raised by PrCs, buff spells, etc. The *real* irony (no pun intended) of the IH options, IMHO, is that the more game-proficient the players are, the more the availability of those options slows down play. The "easy" way to run these options really is sort of what I imagine Gentlegamer's game looks like: The player says he wants to do x, y, and/or z, and the DM figures out the appropriate challenge/stunt and adjudicates accordingly. This gives everyone a nice upfront consistent ruleset (and consequent common set of assumptions) to work with, but keeps play running smoothly without the intrusion of each player figuring out how to max his stunt attack bonus/attack challenge bonus/access to appropriate zone/etc. These mechanics are meant to encourage cinematic play; run them that way!

All that said: I really think D&D would be ripe for splitting into a slimmed-down "basic" ruleset with a big chunk of expansions. It seems like 4e really could offer something as simple as three basic classes (warrior, spellcaster, rogue), a prefab skills system along the lines of UA variants #2 or #3, and a pared-down combat system that maybe dispenses with some of the more complex tactical feats and AoO. Then separate chapters or sidebars could introduce more complex rules, perhaps bringing the skills and feats sections up to something like what IH has, and introducing stuff like stunts. I can see the PHB being reorganized to do this while keeping a similar page count.

 

[Psion]

The Spycraft genre also assumes the extreme case of specialist PCs. So, imo, it works a lot better in that setting than in a fantasy one.

Yeah... Spycraft is more skill based. The character who is really good at skill X with lots of supporting class abilities is as much a niche as healing or arcane magic or trapfinding is in 3e.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I reject your rejection and completely endorse that a robust rule system is worthy of much credit.

What is the definition of "robust rulesystem" in this context? I would prefer that the meaning you are ascribing to "robust" be given rather than that bare normative characterization.