Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 5693843" data-attributes="member: 115">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.</blockquote>

Verification