New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[I'm A Banana]

But whether it should be achieved through simulationist-oriented mechanics (as eg in Rolemaster) or through some other mechanical approach is an open question.

Right. But you see in the BW example, it was up to the DM when to call for a check, and the DM did it when the drama and tension was required.

In the mearls rough draft, the PLAYER gets to decide how they're going to climb, and so even if the DM had some dramatic cliff face suspense scene versus some giant spider or something in mind, the player gets to decide that the situation is not dramatic, since he can't fail. In fact, with that little rule, the player decides that no climbing situation is actually dramatic -- he never risks failure by climbing.

It's just a rough draft, so I'm not exactly calling it out or anything...kind of a minor point, in the grand scheme of this being a pretty interesting skill system at its core.

 

[wrecan]

If swimming is the rules default and a player voluntarily gives up swimming ability

Just for clarification, since you quoted Stomonu and me, I did nto suggest the players voluntarily relinquish their swimming ability. i suggested that the default be that PCs could swim, but the DM could decide that in his ampaign world, the default is they cannot.

For clarity of worldbuilding, I'd personally go with the status quo that most NPCs do not know how to swim by default, at least in medieval societies that don't have the luxury or inclination or access to swimming.

I really don't think we need to set a default for NPCs. The DM can buuild an NPC however he likes with whatever abilities he thinks appropriate for any individual NPC.

I'd only be concerned with the default abilities of PCs, and I think PCs, as heroes, should default to knowing how to swim, and let the DM remove that ability for a specific campaign world.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

An invisible force wall has handholds? (Someone had to say it!)

"Have yeh evah actually tried to climb one, lad? Oh, sure, it may seem to be a featureless wall o' nothin', but if yeh've got the touch, well, yeh kin fin' little ripples in tha magic what hol's it togetha. They come an' go fast, so yeh cannae trust 'em, but if yeh're quick, well ..."

So, essentially, "Why not?"

 

[Yesway Jose]

I really don't think we need to set a default for NPCs. The DM can buuild an NPC however he likes with whatever abilities he thinks appropriate for any individual NPC.

I'd only be concerned with the default abilities of PCs, and I think PCs, as heroes, should default to knowing how to swim, and let the DM remove that ability for a specific campaign world.

Sure, but I use NPCs and the game world as a reference point to understand how the PC behaves in that context. If a medieval village is landlocked, with only a well and shallow stream for water, and no magical swimming pool, then why presume by default that the villagers can swim? Better yet, if a PC background is described as having always been a desert nomad that never left the desert, why presume by default he can swim? What does heroism have to do with swimming ability vs having the wits to tread water? I understand that the 4E philosophy is to separate mechanics from the fiction as much as possible, but if Mearls is speculating about 5E (and who knows if he is?) then IMO he continues to fail to ruminate on what is the foundation of the rules -- what are the rules supposed to be simulating or how are they simulation-free? And is there a toggle box or suggestion sidebar somewhere to, for example, presume that a) NPCs and/or heroes are automatic/instinctive swimmers regardless of the fiction, or b) NPCs and/or heroes may or may not swim by default depending on the fictional context. This may seem trivial, and it probably is, but IMO not when these questions are expanded throughout the entire scope of the game, like an identity crisis.

 

[wrecan]

Sure, but I use NPCs and the game world as a reference point to understand how the PC behaves in that context.

Okay. But the game doesn't need to set a default for NPCs. The DM is going to give the NPCs the skills appropriate for them. The game only has to concern itself for a default set of skills for PCs.

The DM can decide the villagers of the landlocked village with the shallow stream cannot swim, while the townsfolk from the town downstream, when it becomes a river, can swim just fine. The game doesn't need to dictate which group is the "default".

Better yet, if a PC background is described as having always been a desert nomad that never left the desert, why presume by default he can swim? What does heroism have to do with swimming ability vs having the wits to tread water?

Dog paddling isn't particularly heroic. So if you toss a hero into a pool you want him to acquit himself somewhat respectably. The default should be that heroes act heroically. If the DM or player wants a scenario in which a hero is stuck in a mundane situation where he acts unherocially, that should be the exception not the rule.

I understand that the 4E philosophy is to separate mechanics from the fiction

I don't think that's the issue we're discussing. We're discussing heroes.

if Mearls is speculating about 5E (and who knows if he is?) then IMO he continues to fail to ruminate on what is the foundation of the rules -- what are the rules supposed to be simulating or how are they simulation-free?

I think you're importing issues from another thread. D&D is about heroes and always has been. There hasn't been a single edition of D&D where it was ever implied that the default PCs (ie, those not from a setting with a specific rule) cannot swim. Even 2e, which had the non-weapon proficiencies that most closely resembles the Skill system Mearls is discussing, the Swim nonweapon proficiency made you a better swimmer; it was not required for being able to swim.

If you want a hero who can't swim, then introduce a rule where heroes can choose a nonheroic quality in exchange for some benefit. But I think the default should be that heroes know how to swim.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Dog paddling isn't particularly heroic. So if you toss a hero into a pool you want him to acquit himself somewhat respectably. The default should be that heroes act heroically. If the DM or player wants a scenario in which a hero is stuck in a mundane situation where he acts unherocially, that should be the exception not the rule.

That's part of what gave rise to the schism between 4E and earlier editions, ie how heroic is a 1st level hero in D&D? Personally, I'd have no problem with a desert nomad who falls of a ship and is dog paddling -- it's a challenge to overcome, it has verisimilitude, and it's not a story element that bothers me -- and I think ignominious situations could happen (but not frequently) in my history of roleplaying.

These kinds of questions of what skill is simulating what or telling what kind of story can be relevant to Mearls' ruminations (but the swimming example turned out not be my best choice, other examples are the Str or Dex or Str-Dex combo to account for climbing as other people have brought up)

 

[Plane Sailing]

Skill systems are bad game design. They're not systems at all in my book.

Rune quest disagrees with you. As does Call of Cthulhu, Bushido and many other systems!

 

[wrecan]

That's part of what gave rise to the schism between 4E and earlier editions, ie how heroic is a 1st level hero in D&D?

There has yet to be an edition of D&D in which it is assumed that a 1st level hero cannot swim. This has nothing to do with 4e. As I said, in 2e, the Swimming Nonweapon Proficiency merely improved your swimming. You didn't need it to swim.

AD&D didn't have any skill rules (though i beleive it did have rules for swimming that assumed all PCs could swim, unless encumbered by armor), and the 1st edition module Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh also assumed the PCs could swim.

I think ignominious situations could happen (but not frequently) in my history of roleplaying.

Of course they can happen. They shouldn't be the default, however. Choosing to play a character who doesn't know how to swim, or cannot read, or is tone deaf, is fine. You should be able to choose to play such a character. You shouldn't be required to choose not to.

 

[Hussar]

That's part of what gave rise to the schism between 4E and earlier editions, ie how heroic is a 1st level hero in D&D? Personally, I'd have no problem with a desert nomad who falls of a ship and is dog paddling -- it's a challenge to overcome, it has verisimilitude, and it's not a story element that bothers me -- and I think ignominious situations could happen (but not frequently) in my history of roleplaying.

These kinds of questions of what skill is simulating what or telling what kind of story can be relevant to Mearls' ruminations (but the swimming example turned out not be my best choice, other examples are the Str or Dex or Str-Dex combo to account for climbing as other people have brought up)

But, Yesway, you're making presumptions also. You're presuming a baseline where the PC's cannot swim based on the idea that it makes sense for some PC backgrounds. Never mind that my desert dwelling nomad traveled from oasis to oasis and that's why he can swim.

Sure, it does make sense for some PC backgrounds that they can swim. The next question you have to ask, how common are those PC backgrounds? Is it more common around gaming tables that PC's come from deserts or other locations where it would be very rare to learn to swim, or is it more common that they would actually learn to swim in the first place?

Considering most medieval towns and whatnot exist on rivers/lakes/bodies of water, it's not totally unreasonable that a PC would have basic swimming skills. I mean, in 3e, Swim was untrained so everyone baselined to basic swimming skill. If you wanted a character that couldn't swim, you'd have to state it as an exception for that character.

Which is perfectly fine. There's no problem with that. But, again, the designers have to set the baseline somewhere. In D&D, the baseline has always been "able to swim in a basic sort of way". Trying to argue this as edition based is a bit strange because every edition has had the same baseline.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

Without getting hung up in a specific skill example, I think the fundamental conceit of the skills system includes the premise that
1) The characters are heroes.
2) Heroes should have a chance to TRY anything, even when the chance of success is small
3) Good skill design doesn't impose a story (The rules don't say you can swim or climb or not. Instead they provide a framework that allows you to try.)

I don't think it makes a difference WHERE in the book you put the rules for climbing. All that matters is that there is a mechanic available by which to try to climb.

An as far as the article is concerned, I like the idea of a focus on basic ability scores being the foundation for "trying to do things". And I like the idea that the skill system adds specific things to try. (eg. not only charismatic, but also a practiced liar. or not just intelligent, but also well educated in history).

But I don't like the talents as he's presented them. I think it adds more fiddly bits.