Monte Cook's first Legends and Lore is up

[Crazy Jerome]

I think that so many people are reading these articles with preconceived ideas (or sometimes, hopes and fears instead of ideas), that they aren't entirely open to the full range of what is being discussed.

If you really liked your Saturday night spaghetti and salad dinner, perfected over many meals, then brainstorming about alternate pasta, salad, bread, etc. might catch you the wrong way. Thor forbid someone should mention mushrooms or spinach or, worst of all, a new sauce recipe.

Edit for Mengu: I like to use food analogies just before lunchtime.

 

[Scribble]

Like I said in the other thread, nothing in this column really looks like anything other than the existing system.

Sure, he refers to ranks instead of your Perception skill modifier, but that's just hiding the math, not changing the system.

I think a lot of it has to do with player psychology and finding a sweet spot between two schools of thought.

You have players that like the idea of "skilled play." They enjoy thinking up solutions in real life and having the DM determine if they are good enough to work in game. (These people also tend to hate the idea of skill points and DCs and rolling for skills etc...)


Then you have people who hate the idea of "skilled play" and feel that if a PC can do something there should be rules involved and a target number to beat. (These people tend to feel that not having a skill system just feels like "mother may I.")


So even though the current system COULD accommodate the two styles the fact that it in all ways is geared towards the target number playstyle ends up turning off the former players: The system Monte describes seems to want to split the difference.

It speaks to both crowds- it's an underlying target number driven system, but gives heavy thought about how to work with "skilled play." The idea being a given group can choose the best way to use the system to suit their own style/tastes.

(That's what I'm getting out of it anyway.)

 

[Nyronus]

I think that so many people are reading these articles with preconceived ideas (or sometimes, hopes and fears instead of ideas), that they aren't entirely open to the full range of what is being discussed.

If you really liked your Saturday night spaghetti and salad dinner, perfected over many meals, then brainstorming about alternate pasta, salad, bread, etc. might catch you the wrong way. Thor forbid someone should mention mushrooms or spinach or, worst of all, a new sauce recipe.

Edit for Mengu: I like to use food analogies just before lunchtime.

Because heaven above if we like the way things were and want to keep seeing more of the same. How close-minded and foolish of us.

Or, you know, we've tried spinach, mushrooms, ten breads, and thirty sauces and found them all to be varying degrees of less satisfying, or, far better in a different context.

Perhaps other connoisseurs should lay off making assumptions and wildly psychologizing about how and why other people came to like their spagetti, and making insinuations about their ability to understand or enjoy other meals.

----

Honestly this skill system is... o.k.. The big issue is, as others have pointed out, its not really new. It just abstracts the idea of DC vs. Modifier a step further, making it a purely narrative mechanic in all but a few cases. Instead of realizing you can't make the check on a twenty, or you can make it on a one, or more accurately, that you can only succeed on it if you roll 15+ or fail on a 4-. Your chances of success or failure are so large that, for practical purposes you might as well not waste time doing the math. The DM just skips that step and tells you you failed or succeeded outright. From the looks of it, it does narrow the swinginess of the d20, which may, or may not, be a plus. At the same time it thought widens the gap between skilled and unskilled. This makes balancing skill use in an adventure a whole lot harder. If the only character who is a Master lock-pick dies, there is no hope in hell his six apprentice buddies can do anything. At least in 4E you have aid-another. This also kills the idea of a skill challenge, since someone with Master in one or two relevant skills when the challenge is balanced around everyone else being Journeymen would basically make the whole thing a forgone conclusion and a waste of game time. Then again, in a party with high skill modifiers and good tactics, skill challenges do approach that. Despite that, I don't want to see them go, as they are a good idea that, when done well, add to the flow of the game. The system is more evocative than the DC one, but that's mostly a writing issue. One could easily write out the DCs in a flavorful manor to get the same ideas across. DC 10 Acrobatics is rolling under a low edge. DC 40 is traversing a swinging rope over space. Finally his whole point about how his system allowed for player cleverness strikes me as ignorant since I am almost entirely certain 4E ALLOWS AND ENCOURAGES THIS. I don't feel like looking for it, but I do distinctly recall there being a rule about circumstance bonuses, which players are awared an extra modifier for applying the skill creatively or having some expertise or circumstance enhancing the skill. For example a barbarian gets bonuses to intimidate by wearing the skulls of his enemies as part of his armor. There are items like crowbars and footpads in the PHB1 that do things similarly. I know flat out the skill challenge rules encourage a DM to allow players to try off the wall skills, if they can come with up a reasonable narrative for doing so.

So, really, its the DC system, but more well written and most of its flaws amplified. Monte has not only remade the wheel, but he made it lopsided. It doesn't do much new or different, or really, anything at all. The only thing troubling about it is really the "old school is best school" vibe one could potentially get from the article, and the fact that Monte appears to have missed a chunk of the point of the DC system. Not a great start, but, we'll continue to wait and see.

 

[Scribble]

So, really, its the DC system, but more well written and most of its flaws amplified. Monte has not only remade the wheel, but he made it lopsided. It doesn't do much new or different, or really, anything at all. The only thing troubling about it is really the "old school is best school" vibe one could potentially get from the article, and the fact that Monte appears to have missed a chunk of the point of the DC system. Not a great start, but, we'll continue to wait and see.

This is why I said what I said above. I don't think it's designed to "fix" anything.

The DC system works for those that like rolling numbers, that's not the problem. The problem is kind of what you outlined above- the idea of telling someone this syste works for you too- only you have to just change this, or ignore this, it's not designed with you in mind, but you can use it anyway, just change this here... hey where are you going?

The idea is to design a system that doesn't try to tell people they can use it in whatever way they want even though the game doesn't consider that the "real" way of doing it, but instead design one that works and supports either method just as well.

It's like the skill system version of the spork:

Like shoveling piles of food into your awaiting food orifice? Spork's got you covered in spoon mode.

Like the idea of having skills, but still like the idea of "skilled play" having some sort of effect? Spork Skillz gotcha covered.

Like jabbing prongs into each tender morsel before heaving it into your gaping maw? Spork's got you there too in fork mode!

Like the idea of having DCs for things and a rules aproach to whatever or not your character can do stuff? Spork Skillz gotcha bro!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Because heaven above if we like the way things were and want to keep seeing more of the same. How close-minded and foolish of us.

If you do that during what is obviously exploratory, then yes your description of what that behavior is will do as well as any other. I was careful not to psychoanalyze anyone, but you are welcome to do so for yourself.

It's exactly the same thing as if a couple of auto engineers were looking at a problem with a design, and were batting ideas back and forth--nothing decided yet--and then the sales and marketing guys walked in:

"It's gotta be red. People buy red!"

"You gotta keep this stylish line here, it drives our whole ad campaign!"

"Um, gee guys, we aren't there yet. We are still trying to solve an issue--might not even have a good decision and we might not change anything. Just thinking about it. Color and lines don't matter in this discussion, yet. There will be time for that later, if it even matters."

Pause

"It's gotta be red!"

"Don't even think about taking out those lines!"

The obvious response is going to be to lock the sales and marketing mindests out of the room, until they are needed. I'm enjoying the insights into the process before it is all locked down and hidden, and would like them to continue.

By definition, if you want to see, "more of the same," then these articles are not addressed to your concerns.

 

[Incenjucar]

My guess is that Monte is being brought on, at least partly, to write Optional Rule material.

It's very very important to keep in mind that there are a significant number of gamers who require validation from an official source and must be granted permission before doing anything atypical. This is, for game designers, FANTASTIC, even if it results in a lot of redundant material. For those who are not locked into following authority, that redundancy may be annoying, but for those who are, it may be the only way they'll get to try something new. So, for them, I'm happy that they're exploring new things. Also, it reduces the chance that they're going to push a new edition anytime soon; why make a new thing when you can expand on what you have?

 

[Riastlin]

Finally his whole point about how his system allowed for player cleverness strikes me as ignorant since I am almost entirely certain 4E ALLOWS AND ENCOURAGES THIS.

I didn't get the impression from the article that Monte was claiming or implying that you cannot already do this in 4ed. Rather, I think he was trying to address the potential concerns of a 1st rank character in a skill not be able to even try a check that requires 3rd rank.

The idea being floated by him is that if a check requires "Master" rank then those who are Master rank would succeed automatically. Those who are "Journeymen" (or whatever the next lowest rank is) would need to roll, but those who are "Apprentice" (two below Master) could not hope to succeed, and thus could not try. On the contrary, he is saying that, as in 4ed, if the player comes up with a clever idea to assist in his check, then he is entitled to that bonus, which then makes the check possible (though not necessarily easy).

This same thing can also work in reverse. Walking across an extremely thin pole might require Master rank but those of that rank auto succeed. In winter though, that pole becomes covered in ice and snow, so now even the Masters need to roll.

My personal opinion is that this system has its pros and its cons. While I like the idea of "luck" in the form of the d20 (its great when that 20 comes up on a skill check enabling you to surprisingly succeed on a check) I also have felt the pain of the dice seemingly abandoning you every time you need to make a skill check. Heck, I swear that my bard, who was definitely geared toward bluff and diplomacy (though had not yet acquired item bonuses) could never roll above a 3 on a dip or bluff check. Ask him to kick down the door and he had no problem though.

My guess is that Monte is being brought on, at least partly, to write Optional Rule material.

It's very very important to keep in mind that there are a significant number of gamers who require validation from an official source and must be granted permission before doing anything atypical. This is, for game designers, FANTASTIC, even if it results in a lot of redundant material. For those who are not locked into following authority, that redundancy may be annoying, but for those who are, it may be the only way they'll get to try something new. So, for them, I'm happy that they're exploring new things. Also, it reduces the chance that they're going to push a new edition anytime soon; why make a new thing when you can expand on what you have?

I really hope that you are right. Optional material would be an excellent way for WotC to "tinker" with the game while not alienating those who bought into 4ed. Keep the support up for both optional rules and "regular" 4ed and Essentials and frankly, I'm not sure there's a lot to complain about. I think it would go over a lot better than 5ed being announced in the next year or two.

 

[TerraDave]

Well, there is no question who the better writter is...almost forgot it was a rehash of an idea I don't like that much.

Still see the idea as being a little to complicated, at least if it leads to challenge having but a skill ranking and DC (ie expert 23). Maybe if there was always a fixed ratio (expert is always DC 20), it might be ok.

Also begs the question, do you aply this to everything? Autohiting certain opponents?

 

[Scribble]

Also begs the question, do you aply this to everything? Autohiting certain opponents?

You could.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

You could.

It would certainly speed up combat against (relatively) minor opponents in a given fight. It's a good option for groups that like to skim over that part to get back to the RP faster.