Monte Cooks First Legends and Lore

[Mark CMG]

The idea that the game needs to strive for everyone participating all of the time at near-equal levels has never worked well for the game. It just creates homogenization that makes individual characters only different in superficial ways.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What's the wizard's magic roll? Why does the cleric need to sit this one out? He can roll and look for circumstances to boost his attack roll, and being a cleric, probably has some good other stuff to do as well. What do the fighter and thief get for free due to being expert, versus what do they still roll for (special powers, special effects)?

So, you say, "Use situations where many skills can be used to the same effect."

So, how many different skills do there need to be in the game so that everyone is "sufficiently trained" in searching a room to let everyone contribute?

And keep in mind the corollary to the wizard and the cleric just sitting there: The Fighter and the Thief kill the challenger automagically, and then the battle's over.

There's no tension, no chance, no anticipation, no drama, no risk, no game in the thing. It's all binary pass/fail (plus some DM adjudication if the players want to get creative). Which is fine for things that you just want out of the way, but lousy for things where you want some interesting interaction.

Sure, the cleric could be all, "I look for a chink in her armor!", but when the Fighter and the Thief got this handled, why would they need to?

Which is, come to think of it, some of the problem with the current 4e skill system (and skill challenges): the people with training use whatever skill they're trained in and usually pass for everyone, with a binary resolution.

If you want searching a room to be nothing more than a quick pass/fail, that's fine, and it's useful in a lot of situations.

If you want searching a room to be a chance for role-playing, exploration, drama, tension, and engagement, you're going to need more details, more options, and more chance involved. If you want searching a room to be part of the game, you have to make it something you can play.

As a parallel, in my 4e games, I use Passive Perception to notice things that need a binary resolution: hidden things (traps, doors, and monsters), mostly. Whether the party discovers these things or not, I don't really care, and I just want a quick yes/no answer to the question of: is it seen?

However, if the room was filling up gradually with water and they were looking for the quick escape hatch, using Passive Perception would be boring. So at that point, it becomes something akin to a skill challenge. It's a BIG DEAL if they fail (they could all die!), and it's a moment of tension and drama that I want to expand out. So characters need to use their resources and abilities to overcome the challenge. This needs a different resolution system.

It's sort of the difference between an attack roll and a damage roll. If all monsters were minions, combats would be duller pass/fail tests. But most monsters have HP, which is gradually whittled away over the course of several rounds with many attempts, so drama and tension rise gradually.

 

[Mark CMG]

So, how many different skills do there need to be in the game so that everyone is "sufficiently trained" in searching a room to let everyone contribute?

Why must everyone contribute in searching a room? Must everyone be able to contribute in all aspects of the game? How close to equal must everyone be for that participation to feel meaningful to you?

 

[Barastrondo]

The idea that the game needs to strive for everyone participating all of the time at near-equal levels has never worked well for the game. It just creates homogenization that makes individual characters only different in superficial ways.

I honestly can't buy into the idea that the only meaningful way to differentiate characters is to put limits on when you're allowed to meaningfully participate in the game and when you're intended to have a time-out. If you only have three or four hours every couple of weeks to play a game, I think players should be allowed to contribute at a high level for as much of that game as they feel interested in doing so. It's fine to let people sit out if they don't have much of an interest in what's going on at the moment. Really not a fan of the idea that it should be mandatory.

 

[Umbran]

I really wish people would actually read the articles that they're commenting on, you know, before commenting.

I really wish you would stop suggesting that a disagreement with can only happen through lack of reading or comprehension. It comes off as arrogant, and is pretty insulting.

I really wish you would understand what you're reading

I really wish you would not make things personal - address the content of the post, rather than the person of the poster.

Folks, how about we stop getting on each other's wish lists, and read and speak as if we considered each other to be mature, intelligent adults? Please and thank you.

 

[Mark CMG]

I honestly can't buy into the idea that the only meaningful way to differentiate characters is to put limits on when you're allowed to meaningfully participate in the game and when you're intended to have a time-out. If you only have three or four hours every couple of weeks to play a game, I think players should be allowed to contribute at a high level for as much of that game as they feel interested in doing so. It's fine to let people sit out if they don't have much of an interest in what's going on at the moment. Really not a fan of the idea that it should be mandatory.

If everyone can participate all the time at near-equal levels, it ceases to be meaningful on an individual level. Players should be able to enjoy when other players sometimes have the spotlight and not always need to be in it, all the time, themselves.

 

[LostSoul]

I wonder how many people who are fond of this would be fond of this in combat.

"Okay, the Fighter and the Thief have Expert Attack Rolls, the Cleric has Middling Attack Rolls, and the Wizard has Trainee Attack Rolls.

A CHALLENGER APPROACHES. It has Expert AC.

Well, guess the Cleric and the Wizard can sit this one out."

NOT A FAN.

How about this:

The Fighter has Master ability, Cleric and Thief Middling, and the Wizard casts spells. The Challenger is Expert AC.

The Fighter takes a difficult action that effectively reduces his rank to Expert, but it does something else - he beats the challenger's shield to the side, puts him in a lock, trips him, or something like that.

This allows the Cleric and the Thief to take advantage, raising their rank to Expert. The Thief is probably trying to get around for a backstab, increasing his rank again. The Cleric bashes the guy in the head.

The Wizard casts a Wall of Fire to keep the Challenger's allies at bay.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why must everyone contribute in searching a room? Must everyone be able to contribute in all aspects of the game? How close to equal must everyone be for that participation to feel meaningful to you?

It's a complicated answer, but here's the big takeaway: All players must be engaged with the game as much as possible. The best way to make players engaged with the game is to give them something interesting to do, and time in which to do it (for instance, a round during combat, and a few combat-useful powers to choose from).

If I'm going to spend an hour in a combat, or an hour in a role-playing session, or an hour exploring the ruins, I want all the characters to be able to contribute in some way, so that everyone is engaged. And if the encounter, interaction, or exploration is a big, dramatic, important thing for my game, I am going to want to spend a good amount of time and detail resolving it, to make it feel dramatic and important.

If I'm only going to spend 3-5 minutes on a combat, then it's not so important for everyone to be able to do something. Indeed, it's basically redundant. But something I spend 3-5 minutes on isn't going to be very dramatic or exciting at any rate.

What a game invests rules in helps me figure out what the game will be good at making big, dramatic, and exciting. Good combat rules will make me see potential for awesome combats involving everyone. Good exploration rules will help me to see awesome dungeon delves involving everyone. Solid social rules will help me to see awesome personality conflicts involving everyone.

How about this

Why hello, Amber Diceless.

It's quite solid, really! Unfortunately, it's basically re-creating the current system, just without die rolls. Which, to me, still removes a lot of the random fun from the game, and replaces it with "whatever the DM says," which isn't much fun for me, either.

Describing Knockdown Assault instead of just using it reminds me of the most recent Rule-Of-Three, where Rich Baker said something I very much agree with:

I have often felt that highly abstract systems can appear simple but actually increase the cognitive effort to play the game. For example, imagine that D&D tackled magic by telling the players to describe what they want to happen, and then costing the effect afterwards. The problem is, a player doesn’t even have a notion of what to wish for in a system like that—you don’t know what the boundaries are, or what sort of things should be possible. A crunchy system consisting of a hundred discrete, defined spells to choose from is easier to play in many ways.When “abstract” comes to mean “undefined,” the game becomes a collection of jurisprudence—a body of past rulings by the DM winds up serving as the rules of the game.

I can see how others would be a fan of it, but it is not my cuppa, a'tall. I prefer a game experience where, in the tense and dramatic moments, I can zoom in to distinct detail without just offering up a DM's ruling about everything the group does.

 

[Mark CMG]

All players must be engaged with the game as much as possible. The best way to make players engaged with the game is to give them something interesting to do, and time in which to do it (. . .)

I disagree and believe you are beginning from a faulty premise. I do not believe that all players need to be actively engaged with the game at all times, particularly not a game where individuals should be able to have moments (plural) where they can shine as individuals, as heroes. Sure, it's great when groups of players can find ways to work as a team to overcome challenges, sometimes, but to design a game, to contrive rules, such that everyone must be able to participate at all times changes the dynamics of Heroic/Medieval Fantasy tabletop roleplaying. There needs to be times for every member of a group to step up and bring their individuality, their personal, individual specialty, to bear on a challenge. There's an indirect (I do not call it passive) engagement involved in cheering on a comrade who is the best one in a group for a particular moment. This can be in someone holding the bridge while the others make their escape, disarming the trap that would otherwise spell doom for the whole party, negotiating the passage through hostile territory, or countless other situations that lose much of their impact if just about anyone, or worse, everyone, in the group could handle it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, you say, "Use situations where many skills can be used to the same effect."

So, how many different skills do there need to be in the game so that everyone is "sufficiently trained" in searching a room to let everyone contribute?

And keep in mind the corollary to the wizard and the cleric just sitting there: The Fighter and the Thief kill the challenger automagically, and then the battle's over.

There's no tension, no chance, no anticipation, no drama, no risk, no game in the thing. It's all binary pass/fail (plus some DM adjudication if the players want to get creative). Which is fine for things that you just want out of the way, but lousy for things where you want some interesting interaction.

Sure, the cleric could be all, "I look for a chink in her armor!", but when the Fighter and the Thief got this handled, why would they need to?

I feel like I'm caught in the middle of a gang war here.

I agree with you that everyone needs to be able to do something more or less all the time. Whether they do so or not is another thing.

However, I think you are going too extreme the other way here with your assumptions. Why is the combat analogy that the expert fighter kills the opponent? It would seem to me that if you are going to extend the analogy from skills more faithfully, it would be that the expert fighter doesn't have to roll to hit. He hits, and combat goes on from there.

Of course, bare bones, that is boring. So what I was aluding to with special moves is something akin to what Lost Soul gave a great example of. I was thinking that the fighter hits automatically for basic damage, but then has to roll for whatever the special is.

Now, with skills, I also agree that the problem is that they are binary. But the binary problem is not in the comparison of success, it is the granularity of what success means. So yeah, if we are going to keep all current assumptions in such a system, such that, "expert thief automatically solves all expert perception problems," then no, I'm not for that. I'd like some expert perception problems to require multiple successes. Those are the ones worth fiddling with.

One of the reasons that people tend to collapse the skill checks down into binary decisions--whether rolled for, given by fiat or passive abilities, or through player choices--is that the skill roll sitting there creates the illusion that something is happening. And at the same time, the busy work of the d20 roll feeds back into this illusion, while simultaneously encouraging us not to complicate the system more. I'd like for the system to be a bit more involved, and I know it won't be with a bunch of d20 busy work rolls.