Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[Lanefan]

Re: Shadeydm's post:

Over and over on the boards? What boards? These?

Yes, these; I've noticed it too. Not necessarily to the specific degree of wanting to know exact DC numbers for everything, but a general sense of players being entitled to more information than the game (as presented by the DM) should probably let them have, along with more control over aspects of the game other than their own PC's. And that is a direct result of codification of rules...when a rule says 'x' (the DC to jump the chasm is 10) but the DM* says 'y' (you fail on a 19) there's a sense of being entitled to raise a stink, rather than RP-ing the "what happened?" sequence and figuring it out the hard way. The skill system unfortunately lends itself to this, but I can't think of a system that doesn't unless people are willing to trust their DM's.

It's almost another version of the lever-trap argument from a few months ago, where a deadly trap was put on a lever that had no obvious reason to be where it was; there was a sizeable group that said "unfair!" in large part because the PC's had no way of knowing how deadly the trap was. Well, deal with it, 'cause that's how it is.

* - I'm assuming a competent DM here who really does have a reason in mind why the jump failed, and will allow said reason to be discovered by the in-game PC's if they do some reasonable investigating.

Lanefan

 

[Aus_Snow]

Re: Shadeydm's post:Yes, these; I've noticed it too. Not necessarily to the specific degree of wanting to know exact DC numbers for everything, but a general sense of players being entitled to more information than the game (as presented by the DM) should probably let them have, along with more control over aspects of the game other than their own PC's. And that is a direct result of codification of rules...when a rule says 'x' (the DC to jump the chasm is 10) but the DM* says 'y' (you fail on a 19) there's a sense of being entitled to raise a stink, rather than RP-ing the "what happened?" sequence and figuring it out the hard way. The skill system unfortunately lends itself to this, but I can't think of a system that doesn't unless people are willing to trust their DM's.

It isn't a direct result of that at all, in my experience. It's to do with the maturity and general attitude of each player. There are, of course, many reasons why DCs can come in at unexpected levels. Much of the time, players will not know what these are - and that's as it should be. If players are metagaming to the extent that they are constantly thinking about DCs and what their PCs 'should' need them to roll in situations x, y and z. . . well, I'd rather be in a different group at that point, suffice to say. That "sense of being entitled to raise a stink" is essentially childishness, and is nothing to do with the system being (ab)used at the time.

(. . .) [A] deadly trap was put on a lever that had no obvious reason to be where it was; there was a sizeable group that said "unfair!" in large part because the PC's had no way of knowing how deadly the trap was. Well, deal with it, 'cause that's how it is.

I agree completely with this, however. That is indeed "how it is."

 

[BryonD]

It isn't a direct result of that at all, in my experience. It's to do with the maturity and general attitude of each player.

Exactly

 

[buzz]

Deleted continuation of pointless discussion.

 

[buzz]

Ditto.

 

[Rothe]

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.

Suprised not to see it....add Traveller the original skill based RPG IIRC, I'd also add the Universal Game Mechanic (UGM).