Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[danzig138]

Because it is easier to add than to subtract.

Says you. I find that's not the case.

 

[Klaus]

Says you. I find that's not the case.

I agree.

For instance: it's far easier to remove AoO from the game than it would be to add them if they weren't there in the first place.

It's far more compicated to add Facing (UA) to the game, since it adds all sorts of considerations that aren't included in the core game, and you'd have to keep adding Facing to any new product you buy.

 

[Piratecat]

First off, the ideas on my LJ have nothing to do with how we develop D&D. This was purely something I thought of while cleaning my apartment on Sunday afternoon while listening to the Seahawks game.

Frankly, Mike, I don't believe this. You cleaned your apartment?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Personally, I would like the current d20 system far more if the combat and magic were reduced to skills .

Rolemaster does this. Combat abilities are just more skills you have to buy. Cheaper for pure warrior and semi-warrior types than pure spellcasters or semi-spellcasters.

But they pay more for access to spells.

 

[Gentlegamer]

not to mention why I'm paying $30 a pop for stacks of rulebooks.

No matter what changes are made, I would pray that "stacks of rulebooks" aren't necessary or desired.

(P.S., the jumping onto illusory terrain example is a strawman, as there are rules to deal with this in D&D 3.5 that are more than, "Trust the DM and do what he says.")

It wasn't a strawman: he did not set that up as a caracature of your position and then make it the basis of his argument. From your view, it was merely a poor example. [/nitpick]

 

[Gentlegamer]

I agree.

For instance: it's far easier to remove AoO from the game than it would be to add them if they weren't there in the first place.

I completely disagree. There are so many class based abilities and feats predicated on AoO in the game that removing them without rewriting most of the game is nearly impossible. AoO is one element of the tactical/miniatures combat in the game that is so entwined amongst all the rules that it is impossible to remove without changing the whole system . . . sort of like Firx in Eyes of the Overworld, those rules are implanted so deeply and are so pervasive that removing them kills the victim.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I completely disagree. There are so many class based abilities and feats predicated on AoO in the game that removing them without rewriting most of the game is nearly impossible. AoO is one element of the tactical/miniatures combat in the game that is so entwined amongst all the rules that it is impossible to remove without changing the whole system . . . sort of like Firx in Eyes of the Overworld, those rules are implanted so deeply and are so pervasive that removing them kills the victim.

If I may disagree, it is actually very easy to remove AoO (Star Wars d20 showed the way). From the core game you just have to remove Combat Reflexes and disallow actions that would otherwise provoke and its fully functional.

There are other aspects to the rules that are so deeply entwined that it is almost impossible to extricate them, but AoO isn't one of them in my experience.

 

[Lanefan]

If the whole of the system is "a good GM will make it work," then it begs the question of why we're using a system at all, not to mention why I'm paying $30 a pop for stacks of rulebooks.

The "stacks of rulebooks" (sigh; has the game really come to that?) are there to provide the DM a framework on which to build her game. That's where 1e is good; it provides the frame for the house but you (the DM) still get to do the furnishing and decorating, and can make changes to the frame if you like. 3e wants to do all the decorating for you, while 3.5 (from what little I've seen) does the decorating and tells you where each piece of furniture has to go.

Again, some people like this sort of play. That's cool, but it doesn't really speak to what I would consider good design worth paying for. Mearls himself once said that good rules are ones that make the game more enjoyable than if they weren't there. If I want to just do freeform where it's all about being told a story by a privileged player or collaborating on a story via negotiation, then I can do that for free.

Good base design is one thing. Overdesign and micromanagement are another. This has become my main complaint with Magic of late: in its early days, the designers just threw cards together into a set and let the players figure 'em out...sure some were broken, but so what. Now, each set is overdesigned to a fault...to the point that when you open a pack, you *know* there won't be anything a player can take and run with, and push outside the envelope...and that makes it less interesting. D+D seems to be going the same way.

(P.S., the jumping onto illusory terrain example is a strawman, as there are rules to deal with this in D&D 3.5 that are more than, "Trust the DM and do what he says.")

I don't know 3.5 well enough to answer this, but if what you say is true the days of micromanagement have (sadly) already arrived.

Lanefan

 

[Shadeydm]

The "stacks of rulebooks" (sigh; has the game really come to that?) are there to provide the DM a framework on which to build her game. That's where 1e is good; it provides the frame for the house but you (the DM) still get to do the furnishing and decorating, and can make changes to the frame if you like. 3e wants to do all the decorating for you, while 3.5 (from what little I've seen) does the decorating and tells you where each piece of furniture has to go.

Lanefan

QFT

Thanks for reading my mind!!

 

[Psion]

That's where 1e is good; it provides the frame for the house but you (the DM) still get to do the furnishing and decorating, and can make changes to the frame if you like. 3e wants to do all the decorating for you, while 3.5 (from what little I've seen) does the decorating and tells you where each piece of furniture has to go.

Yeah, because race/class restrictions, level limits, special abilities strictly bound to classes, and the like are all about creative freedom!

IOW, I think yours is the most pie-in-the-sky, off the mark analogy evar.