Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[buzz]

Because it is easier to add than to subtract.

Adding to a system is much, much easier (preference-wise) than subtracting from a system that is as tightly systematized as d20.

I don't agree. If the system leaves too much to individual GMs, what you get is wild variance between games, and a constant process of player-GM negotiation. In extreme cases, things boil down to, "Roll some dice, and the GM tells you what happens." Some people are cool with this, but I don't really like it.

However, my larger point was that you seem to be arguing One True Way-ism, and this stance is problematic from either end of the spectrum. If you assume that all mechanics are better when they're like X, you're possibly overlooking that this particular mechanic might be better when it's like Y. Specifically, you're arguing for a very old-school "lite" approach as naturally better. That may be great for you, but it isn't for me.

I'm making cases for both streamlined (Notice and Sneak) and more detailed (Spycraft) options for improvement. I'm not entirely sold on either option; I'm just not nuts about this new solution from Mearls.

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.

I was one of the people advocating combining some of the skills, FYI. What I am not doing, however, is claiming that there's one correct way that's the obvious answer.

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).

I don't think tossing around terms like "simulationists" is really helping clarify anything.

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.

I don't see any problem with the term. Would you prefer something like "higher points of contact"? "Detailed"?

 

[buzz]

When you are talking about a good system for the gaming community at large, you must keep that context in mind.

If you mean the D&D fanbase, then yeah. Ultimately, that's who WotC answers to. I know there's a vocal minority that would prefer D&D be transformed into something like C&C, but I honestly don't think that's what most of the D&D market wants. Granted, only WotC's market research dept really has useful data on this front, but given that we have at our disposal the end product of some of the most extensive playtesting the hobby has seen, we can probably assume that 3.x is pretty much what the majority of the playtesters and designers believed was "good D&D" to them.

Now, it may not be "good D&D" to you, but WotC isn't concerned only with you; they're at the beck and call of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of D&D fans.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So what skill systems do we have....

True 20: Automatic advancement of skills, no cross-class skills. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

D&D: Cross-class and distribution by player per level.

Rolemaster Standard System: Skill cost varies by profession. Skills have broad groups and specialty sub-groups. Distribution by player per level.

Hero: Light cost, tied into ability score, further points can be used to increase skill. Points come from one pool of character points.

Gurps: Light cost, tied into ability score, further points can be used to increase skill. Points come from one pool of character points.

 

[Henry]

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.

Actually, the team checks from Spycraft go the other way: You use the LOWEST result for the group. However, one of the Pointman's Shticks is that a limited number of times per (day? per session? drawing a blank) he can enable the group to use the HIGHEST result. That way, it prevents the "one specialist fits all" complaint, but makes it useful to have one, AND makes it useful to have a pointman, among other things.

 

[buzz]

What is the definition of "robust rulesystem" in this context?

In this context, probably "Provides more than a simple die mechanic plus GM fiat as a resolution system." I.e., the mechanic gets me to an end result rather than merely informing a GM call.

E.g., A Jump mechanic that determines DC based on distance attempted is probably a good candidate for "robust." A Jump mechanic that set no fixed DC, but advised that a high roll would be good and a low roll bad, would not be something I'd call robust.

I'd also argue that any mechanic that allows for meaningful input on the part of the player/GM would qualify as "robust." I.e., the player or GM can make choices that matter. A system that involves me rolling a die and then negotiating with the GM as to the result isn't what I'd call robust; there's no concrete way I can influence that roll other than lobbying the GM. Some people love this style of play, but it's so rules-irrelevant that I'd have a hard time using a word like "robust" to describe the associated systems.

That's pretty much my core issue with Mearls' idea. The DM has such a big hand in determining what the roll means, that I feel like, as a player, I'm not doing much other than rolling my d20, adding my attribute, and hoping the DM is feeling generous tonight.

The key thing to remember is that, in my mind, it's not an issue of "simple" vs. "complex." The Pool RPG, e.g., is only a page of rules or so, but I'd qualify it as "robust," because the basic rule covers all possible in-game actions without resorting to putting all the authority in the hand of one player and then hoping for the best.

Anyway, the D&D we have now provides a very interesting tactical game. Make any important subsystem too tactically uninteresting (e.g., "roll and hope"), and you detract from the game experience. Seeing as there are so many other RPGs that provide the "rules-lite," non-tactical experience, I don't see why people have to keep pushing for D&D to do the same thing.

(Gentlegamer, it is entirely possible that "robust" is as meaningless as "lite" or "crunchy." However, we know for a fact that RPGs come in varying degrees of "rules quantity," so there's obvious some grounds for finding a word or words to refer to this quality. "Relevant points of contact" is probably a better, if more awkward, way to phrase it.)

 

[buzz]

So what skill systems do we have...

Burning Wheel/Empires, Artesia: Initial skills determined by lifepaths.

Burning Wheel/Empires, RuneQuest, Artesia: Advancement based on actual in-game use of the skill; new skills acquired by in-game study and training.

Prime Time Adventures: Skills chosen based upon overall character concept; broad applications based on needs of playing out situations and character's Issues.

 

[Klaus]

Call of Cthulhu (Chaosium): roll really well on a skill during an adventure and it goes up for the next adventure. But it doesn't matter, ' cause you'll die before it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Call of Cthulhu (Chaosium): roll really well on a skill during an adventure and it goes up for the next adventure. But it doesn't matter, ' cause you'll die before it.

Been a while since I played, but I'm pretty sure that Runequest/Elric/Stormbringer uses the same method.

Me? I don't mind the skill increasing when you use it without actually putting any 'points' into it.

It does become a pain for a GM to keep track of advancements though...

Warhammer: Skills initially determined by class and tied to ability score. New skills can be bought with entry into new professions. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong. My Warhammer memory is failing these days.)

 

[Pielorinho]

Actually, the team checks from Spycraft go the other way: You use the LOWEST result for the group.

Only if success hinges on everyone succeeding:

* If only one character must succeed for the entire team to reap the benefit (e.g., one character can make a team Notice/Awareness check and inform the others of what he finds), the character with the highest relevant skill bonus makes the check.

* If every member of the team must succeed to reap the benefit (e.g., every member of a team must succeed with simultaneous Security/Disable checks at different locations), the character with the lowest relevant skill bonus makes the check

However, one of the Pointman's Shticks is that a limited number of times per (day? per session? drawing a blank) he can enable the group to use the HIGHEST result. That way, it prevents the "one specialist fits all" complaint, but makes it useful to have one, AND makes it useful to have a pointman, among other things.

Yep!

Daniel

 

[Lanefan]

Hmmm...let's see if I understand this. You say:

I'd also argue that any mechanic that allows for meaningful input on the part of the player/GM would qualify as "robust." I.e., the player or GM can make choices that matter. ...

But then you say:

That's pretty much my core issue with Mearls' idea. The DM has such a big hand in determining what the roll means, that I feel like, as a player, I'm not doing much other than rolling my d20, adding my attribute, and hoping the DM is feeling generous tonight.

When taken together, these contradict as to the relevance of DM input. What's wrong with just rolling the dice and letting the chips (and the character) fall where they may? A good DM will (usually) let you succeed when you should, fail when you should, and cling to the edge on a borderline roll...and will have a good reason when "usually" isn't the case. And the DM is perfectly within her rights to not tell you what the "good reason" is unless it's obvious to you and-or the other characters.

Take, for example, jumping across a narrow chasm...say, 8' wide...a jump you should be able to easily make most of the time; a roll of 1 or 2 might be trouble, but that's it. You're the first to jump, and roll a 14; with your bonuses this beats the DC by a ton, but the DM says you fail (giving no reason why), and the last your party hears of you is a fading scream as you plummet into darkness to your doom.

If the DM does this on a whim without reason that's just bad DMing; nothing can save you from that except find another game. But assuming a competent DM running a dangerous adventure, do you have a valid argument? No.

The far side could be an illusion. The chasm could be distorted to appear much narrower than it is. There could be a huge-ass magnet or gravity well down the chasm that pulled you in. An invisible creature could have got lucky and grabbed you from below as you jumped over it. Whatever. The only important thing is that you as a player don't know and can't know what went wrong...and that rules aren't everything. All you're *ever* doing is rolling the d20 and hoping for the best, and if you can't trust your DM to have reasons for why things work the way they do there's bigger problems afoot than just the skills rules.

As for said skills rules, put me on the side of leaving things in a gray area rather than having it all so black and white.

Lanefan