Monte Cook's first Legends and Lore is up

[LightPhoenix]

I think there's two issues with the skill system that Monte is trying to get at, and not doing a good job of communicating.

The first one is that skill checks, independent of system tend to be set up with one of three goals in mind:

1) The check is highly possible for everyone,
2) The check is impossible or highly unlikely for everyone,
3) The check is only possible for those trained.

In each of these scenarios the question isn't usually answered by the roll, it's answered by the character sheet. Either the character has the requisite skill training/ranks/whatever to do it, or they don't. I think the point Monte is trying to make is why bother having math and rolling at all? Either you can do something, or you can't.

The second one is that skill checks, by and large, are a narrative device. There are two halves to D&D; combat and narrative. Rolling for skill checks is an attempt to take narrative and run it more like combat. However, doing that creates issues that through its history D&D has basically ignored. In fact, until recently D&D has traditionally given precedence to narrative over combat. The prime example is 4E's more defined combat rules versus the less defined rules of earlier editions. So unlike combat as narrative, narrative as combat is still quite clunky.

What they are doing with this article is positing answers as to how these issues can be addressed for smoother game play. One possible answer, according to Mike and Monte, is to have a more granular system which removes rolling and services the narrative. I don't think this is the only answer. I don't even think it's a complete answer - it still doesn't address narrative as combat (ie, rolls). Still, the point of these aptly named articles isn't to develop a full system. The point is to stimulate discussion and thought on the design side of things.

 

[KidSnide]

I think Monte's system has an unexpected (at least to me) benefit, in that skill check bonuses can still matter, but they no longer dominate the system.

In 3e/4e, piling on feats and magic items make a huge different in whether a character can target a DC (or render a DC trivial). In my experience, that makes it very difficult to create appropriate DCs. One party's Thievery master can easily be at +8 to +10 over another party's best thief. I'm fine with some thieves being better than others, but I prefer to not have heroic character hitting low epic DCs on a lucky shot.

In Monte's system, skill modifiers can still make a meaningful difference because they determine whether a rank 3 character really has a shot of making a rank 5 check. However, if ranks are based on less variable character build components like class and level, you don't see low-mid level characters blasting through impossible DCs. They best they can be is predictably capable of hitting a couple ranks above theirs.

I'm not sure any of this additional complexity is worth it, but I think this system could lead to a more predictable game design experience and, IMO, a better simulation of the "talented apprentice".

-KS

 

[keterys]

Yep, it does cut off the "I have +6 from an item, +3 from background, +3 from a feat, +2 from race, +5 untyped from this other item, so with that extra +19, I invalidate the d20 roll compared to what is expected of my character" angle.

And maybe having those things still means you automake the rank +1 check that you should in theory be rolling for... but you no longer automake the rank + 2 check, since it's impossible. Unless, of course, you state something that makes it easier... like "Y'know, I check the statue's head out, cause that sounded interesting" and suddenly it's possible.

The problem is, that by stating that, you now incentivize people back to "searching every square", just with words. I search the room, find anything? Okay, I search... the statue, the bed, and the bookshelf. Still no? Okay, let's get specific, I check out the statue's eyes and hands, underneath the bed and in the mattress, and behind the bookshelf and on the shelf that starts with the letter H, cause Halaster was crazy like that."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The problem is, that by stating that, you now incentivize people back to "searching every square", just with words. I search the room, find anything? Okay, I search... the statue, the bed, and the bookshelf. Still no? Okay, let's get specific, I check out the statue's eyes and hands, underneath the bed and in the mattress, and behind the bookshelf and on the shelf that starts with the letter H, cause Halaster was crazy like that."

That's a slipperly slope argument, with all the associated drawbacks. Nonetheless, I wouldn't dismiss it lightly.

 

[Riastlin]

That's a slipperly slope argument, with all the associated drawbacks. Nonetheless, I wouldn't dismiss it lightly.

Yeah it certainly becomes a possibility as players look for that extra little bit of edge to make sure that they are finding everything they possibly can. A certain amount of this comes down to a sort of social contract at the table (assuming you don't want to spend half hour in each room solely on having the players describe how they are looking) wherein the DM agrees to mention what may be important (as well as stuff that may not) and if the players begin to make an effort toward describing a more thorough search, you give them the bonus.

The problem of course comes back to the early statement that a lot of groups need to "see it in print" in order to adopt a particular "rule" or "style". Communication can alleviate a lot of this but bad communication will only make things worse. I know I've played a rogue in games where I tell the DM "I'm keeping a careful eye on everything as we go to make sure we don't trigger any traps, etc." and ended up having the DM make me roll every 5 feet. I don't think it was really what either of us wanted per se but we just hadn't communicated it well enough. Once we did we were fine and the game picked back up but until it was cleared up it was agonizing.

 

[D'karr]

Even though this "system" is not fully defined and therefore "theoretical" it takes the skill system in the "wrong" direction by simplifying away granularity even further. IMO this is a mistake.

IMO one of the current weaknesses of the 4e skill system is skill access. This also existed in 3x. The idea of class and cross-class skills for access should be entirely removed. If you're a wizard and want to be good at athletics, go for it. There should be no restriction on it, just like restrictions were lifted from races being certain classes.

What should exist is a class bonus to "class" skills. So a rogue is better at Thievery right off the bat than a Fighter. A wizard is better at Arcana than a cleric, etc. But who cares if your rogue decides to spend some of his" character investment" in Arcana? Go ahead. However, the wizard should have a bonus to his Arcana simply because he is a wizard.

This keeps the iconic skills for a class, iconic, but does not prevent others from having access to the skill. I hate the idea of spending feats, etc., to gain access to skills. It reeks of lazy design. The other weakness of the system is the endless stacking of bonuses from the PC side.

The idea of ranks for tasks is not a bad one but has a couple of weaknesses that don't seem to be reconciled. The game has always been built around the idea of improving with experience. Obviously there are some tasks that should be so easy as to not warrant a check of any kind. Walking should not require a check. But walking across a rope should be at least difficult to some level and walking across a rope that's on fire with gale force winds hitting you in the face should be difficult to some level. However with the proposed system there would come a time when no task would be impossible. The lack of granularity removes the uncertainty/challenge of some tasks. Once you're at the top level any task in that space is "automatically" open to you. This just does not sit well with me. At some point the DM just runs out of things to "challenge" the characters with. At least with the current DC system you can always bump up the challenge a bit to account for that unexpected circumstance. With the rank system it looks like you run out of bumps after a certain point.

The other weakness relates to player vs. character. There are some players that try as they might would not be "creative" enough to come up with the steps involved in creating an arcane formula. Well, they shouldn't have to. The same way that we don't expect the bard player to do somersaults at the table to demonstrate his "acrobatics". With this system some tasks would remain "locked" to the character unless the player was creative enough to be able to "bump" the skill check to the next level.

I agree that you want to have a game system that challenges both the player and the character but this "rank" skill system seems to do one by sacrificing the flexibility of the other.

This theoretical system does not seem to move the skill system in a direction where the weaknesses of the current system are addressed and it seems to retain very little of the "good things" that the current system provides. By going to a "less granular" system it pushes in the opposite direction by making the stacking of bonuses even more powerful.

Of course we have not seen an entire "real" system but what I'm seeing is not impressing me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Even though this "system" is not fully defined and therefore "theoretical" it takes the skill system in the "wrong" direction by simplifying away granularity even further. IMO this is a mistake.

IMO one of the current weaknesses of the 4e skill system is skill access. This also existed in 3x. The idea of class and cross-class skills for access should be entirely removed. If you're a wizard and want to be good at athletics, go for it. There should be no restriction on it, just like restrictions were lifted from races being certain classes.

What should exist is a class bonus to "class" skills. So a rogue is better at Thievery right off the bat than a Fighter. A wizard is better at Arcana than a cleric, etc. But who cares if your rogue decides to spend some of his" character investment" in Arcana? Go ahead. However, the wizard should have a bonus to his Arcana simply because he is a wizard.

This keeps the iconic skills for a class, iconic, but does not prevent others from having access to the skill. I hate the idea of spending feats, etc., to gain access to skills. It reeks of lazy design. The other weakness of the system is the endless stacking of bonuses from the PC side.

The idea of ranks for tasks is not a bad one but has a couple of weaknesses that don't seem to be reconciled. The game has always been built around the idea of improving with experience. Obviously there are some tasks that should be so easy as to not warrant a check of any kind. Walking should not require a check. But walking across a rope should be at least difficult to some level and walking across a rope that's on fire with gale force winds hitting you in the face should be difficult to some level. However with the proposed system there would come a time when no task would be impossible. The lack of granularity removes the uncertainty/challenge of some tasks. Once you're at the top level any task in that space is "automatically" open to you. This just does not sit well with me. At some point the DM just runs out of things to "challenge" the characters with. At least with the current DC system you can always bump up the challenge a bit to account for that unexpected circumstance. With the rank system it looks like you run out of bumps after a certain point.

The other weakness relates to player vs. character. There are some players that try as they might would not be "creative" enough to come up with the steps involved in creating an arcane formula. Well, they shouldn't have to. The same way that we don't expect the bard player to do somersaults at the table to demonstrate his "acrobatics". With this system some tasks would remain "locked" to the character unless the player was creative enough to be able to "bump" the skill check to the next level.

I agree that you want to have a game system that challenges both the player and the character but this "rank" skill system seems to do one by sacrificing the flexibility of the other.

This theoretical system does not seem to move the skill system in a direction where the weaknesses of the current system are addressed and it seems to retain very little of the "good things" that the current system provides. By going to a "less granular" system it pushes in the opposite direction by making the stacking of bonuses even more powerful.

Of course we have not seen an entire "real" system but what I'm seeing is not impressing me.

Not a bad way of handling it, I'd at least remove the 'class skill list' rule.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Once you're at the top level any task in that space is "automatically" open to you. This just does not sit well with me. At some point the DM just runs out of things to "challenge" the characters with. At least with the current DC system you can always bump up the challenge a bit to account for that unexpected circumstance. With the rank system it looks like you run out of bumps after a certain point.

I've been playing around with the skill rank idea (homebrew system, not D&D). This particular problem is easily solved. You might not word it this way, but for clarity, you have 2 extra ranks on either end of the scale. Let's say your scale is:

Untrained, Apprentice, Journeyman, Expert, Master, Grand Master, Epic, God-like.

What tasks are god-like? Ones that even an epic level, epic trained character can't do. If it is more difficult than Epic, then a mortal cannot do it. The Untrained rank is there for explaining the lower boundary of where Apprentice matters, more clearly.

Now, parsing out those ranks, if adopted exactly as above, would involve some trades. You probably don't want to parse them out even, say, across the 4E 30 levels and three tiers. Expert might be somthing you achieve near the end of heroic (so 4 ranks in heroic), Master and Grand Master are in the realm of early and late paragon, respectively, and you only get Epic mid-way through the epic tier, for things you have concentrated on.

That's one way, you could do it. There are others. But the idea is that a paragon character spends a certain amount of time getting to expert in some secondary skills, and thus finds it harder and harder to advance the main ones (in rank), compared to the relatively fast advancement in the heroic tier. This is not unlike pre 3E level advancement.

Also, within a given rank, there is still room for differences in the numbers. It may be that at level 5, you'll have the occasional easy to medium Expert check--a single one that isn't critical but useful if you pass. By level 10, you may be expected to have someone that can hit it consistently, including easy or medium checks that are critical to make, and hard ones that would be really nice if you made them. There's nothing wrong with saying this Expert trap (a certain level of complication and trickiness) requires +5 to hit, while this other one requires +12.

Note that I do think the terminology and breakpoints of having the expert succeed automatically at the expert tasks, is not helpful for exploring the full range of the idea (with master requiring a roll). It's more varied and useful, IMO, to have the given level require a roll at that rank. Experts roll to do expert things. Then they can try master at a minus, can't do grand master, can try journeyman at a substantial bonus (making it "take 10" most of the time) and get auto success for lower rank tasks. But that's all quibbles on details.

 

[the Jester]

As far as secret doors go, I didn't say automatically finds, I said automatically finds if the PCs have picked up on the DM's clues. The players should be the ones looking through their descriptions of what their characters are doing. If, due to the DM describing the room in such a way that the players know there might be something up, they look under the carpet where a hidden celler door is then they find it, no dice rolls. If they don't look under that carpet, they don't find it, no dice rolls. It's way more interesting that way than the DM rolling some dice behind a screen and saying 'ok, the elf finds a secret door' or the adventurers rolling in every single damn room (or worse, for every object in every room) to look for things.

Again, for certain playstyles, sure. For some, it's way more interesting if the DM rolls dice when the pcs search and they are never quite sure whether they found everything.

For your other comment, I'm not in the habit of running the same adventures multiple times with the same group or even with different groups. Maybe if you're making a CRPG that's going to be played over and over then sure use dice rolls.

This comes across to me as pretty condescending and one-true-wayish. I hope I'm misreading your tone.

Seriously, no group ever returns to the site of an adventure in your campaign? You never use the same setting for multiple groups? Nobody ever misses anything in your adventures? You've never had pcs claim a cleared out lair for their own or use a dungeon for holding prisoners or settling that dwarven clan driven out of their homeland?

If the only way you can conceive of a place or setting that outlasts one adventure or party of adventurers is to think "CRPG", then I'm afraid your view of what makes a campaign is quite narrow. Heck, there have been some adventure areas with at least three visits to them in published adventures over the years- and Tomb of Horrors has had at least five incarnations that I am aware of.

 

[Tymophil]

I have been disappointed by this column. The skills are not a big problem in D&D4.0. Other aspects of the edition need, in my humble opinion, fixing or ironing. Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook both avoid the biggest problems and toy with aspects of the game that already work and need no modification.

I am still waiting for someone at Wizards of the Coast to tackle the problems of the length of combats and the difficulty to instill narration in combats.

If they could only aknowledge the problem, it would be a nice start...