Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[Azgulor]

I don't like it either, at all actually.

Crunchy bits aside, my main problem with it is that it doesn't differentiate between someone who has natural talent bu no formal training versus someone who not naturally gifted at something but has trained extensively.

It also doesn't account for varying levels or train or ability.

I really don't like the all-or-nothing approach to skills. Varying degrees of ability must be taken into account.

Quoted for truth.

 

[buzz]

When sneaking past someone, they might not have ranks in Spot, only Listen, or vice-versa.

And all they typically need is decent ranks in one of them to discover you.

In a dark area, you have an easier time Hiding, but not so much when Moving Silently.

All a dark area does is allow you to use Hide in the first place; it does not provide any modifiers, except when it's so dark that it obviates the need for a check at all (total concealment).

The reverse goes when there's plenty of noise around (like your PC allies staging a mock fight to distract the guard while you tip-toe past him).

Yes, the guard has a +5 to his DC for being distracted, but there's nothing in the RAW that says it has to be a sound-based distraction.

I see these situations handled under the combined skills pretty easily. D&D, IMO, doesn't care enough about the specific differences. In the case of Hide/Move Silently, I can't think of any reason why a PC would put ranks into one and not the other. I can't think of any recent sessions in which having a high Listen was anywhere near as useful as a high Spot. Combine them and let me have the extra skill point.

 

[buzz]

The primary thrust of the idea is the idea that, by adding more flexibility to the system, you might encourage people to become more creative in play.

All I think a system as simple as this is doing is making creative uses of skills into: "The DM likes the idea, and lets you succeed no matter what the roll, or else doesn't like it, and you fail no matter what the roll." This, IMO, is a step backwards.

There are some things that you simply cannot define with rules, and I think the creative input that players and DMs can have on a game fall into that category. You can build a framework through which people express their creativity, but that framework cannot define their creativity.

I think what you were getting at with IH's stunts strikes a lot closer to the bullseye on this one. It encourages creative skill use, but doesn't negate codified rules for common uses. Stunts also bolt-on to the existing ruleset without any major changes.

 

[Zoatebix]

I don't play C&C and I don't play True20 for those reasons.

True20 uses skill ranks - they dropped the 'every skill you're trained in is level+3' idea.

C&C isn't for me, but I've got some love for True20.

 

[Henry]

Mike, regardless of any acceptance or criticism you may receive, keep posting those Livejournals and Design articles where time permits. For one thing, it's always fun to see a creative mind at work, and for another, few enough people affiliated with WotC talk to us as it is.

 

[Harlekin]

What a godawful idea!!!

I hope that idea dies a quick death. I would not buy or gm this game.

The D&D skill systems is among the biggest strengths of the system. Reducing it to this simplistic concept reduces the utility of the entire game significantly. Presently, I can use D&D to play a character-driven story, and the system allows for meaningful differences between a character's abilities. The present rules also allow for a good balance between training(ranks) and talent(attribute boni). Under Mike's concept, everybody has the same level of competency and training is almost irrelevant; high Dex characters are the best stalkers, regardless wether they are 1st level or 21st level.

 

[DaveMage]

I wonder how often Mike gets people adding in apostrophes in his last name?

Cheers,
Cam

Probably as often as Cam Banks (or should it be Bank's?).

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

It's funny that a few people commented on IH. Iron Heroes was an important design for me. There's a famous quote that I'm about to mangle, but it goes something like, "Every artist needs someone in position to hit him over the head when he's done with his work, to prevent him from screwing it up."

Slightly off topic. Mike, I'm curious how this quote relates to your IH experience. It's not immediately clear to me. Did you feel no one was there to hit you over the head and that you somehow botched the project? Did it open a lot of conceptual doors for you? Something else that's gone completely over my head?

I bought IH soon after came out and only within the past few months has it really grown on me. Now I love it and would find it hard to go back to 3.5 without importing some of your design choices (namely skill groups and stunts). So I'm just curious how you feel the project turned out, and really how it relates to some of your current musings and ideas.

 

[JoeGKushner]

This from the guy who wrote Iron Heroes?


glass.

That's exactly what I was thinking! Not only Iron Heroes, but Iron Might!

"My thinking behind this is that a skill system is only as interesting as the players and DM want to make it. Adding more rules to the D&D skill system, such as for stunts, doesn't make it more interesting. It just bloats the system. These rules allow a DM and players to find their own level of importance for skills."

But I'll write a system system of stunts to pad it out and further complicate it myself!

On the other hand, who better to speak from experience?

 

[ValhallaGH]

This from the guy who wrote Iron Heroes?


glass.

Have you read the skill chapter from that book? Then added in the Stunt rules?

B - L - O - A - T - E - D

Don't get me wrong. They are a lot of fun (I run an IH game regularly) but they are long and complicated too.

I see where he's coming from and I find it interesting. I just don't know if it's for me.