Nimble 5e

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I think you need a much heavier hand to turn 5e into something nimbler.

I'm sure this is an improvement, but if we're still counting 30ft movements and there's 100+ pages of spells, while they seem proud that they removed Athletics as a skill but kept the skill system otherwise... uhh.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The changes are a bit too conservative for my tastes. For example, the designer dumps Constitution, as they think that it's redundant with Strength, but then also decides to keep all three of the mental stats as if there were no redundancies there?

Great point.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm sure this is an improvement, but if we're still counting 30ft movements and there's 100+ pages of spells, while they seem proud that they removed Athletics as a skill but kept the skill system otherwise... uhh.

After running Shadowdark for a year, I really like the implicit skill system there. Does it make sense you know how to do a thing, based on your class, ancestry or background? OK, treat that like a skill. If not, you don't.

The bookkeeping is really unnecessary, it turns out.

 

[Zaukrie]

After running Shadowdark for a year, I really like the implicit skill system there. Does it make sense you know how to do a thing, based on your class, ancestry or background? OK, treat that like a skill. If not, you don't.

The bookkeeping is really unnecessary, it turns out.

I'm so there for this.

 

[Aldarc]

After running Shadowdark for a year, I really like the implicit skill system there. Does it make sense you know how to do a thing, based on your class, ancestry or background? OK, treat that like a skill. If not, you don't.

The bookkeeping is really unnecessary, it turns out.

There is definitely something positive to be said for an implicit skill system. However, a potential point of conflict lies in when the GM and the player, even both in good faith, have very different sensibilities about whether "it make sense you know how to do a thing" based on those things. From the player side of things it can feel a bit like "Mother, May I?" From the GM side of things it can feel like "fishing for an advantage."

I say this as someone who likes Aspects in Fate, Traits in Fabula Ultima, Backgrounds in 13th Age, Backgrounds in Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc. I probably would also be okay with the implicit skill system in Shadowdark too.

 

[Reynard]

There is definitely something positive to be said for an implicit skill system. However, a potential point of conflict lies in when the GM and the player, even both in good faith, have very different sensibilities about whether "it make sense you know how to do a thing" based on those things. From the player side of things it can feel a bit like "Mother, May I?" From the GM side of things it can feel like "fishing for an advantage."

I think this is one of the places where "being a fan of the PCs" and "playing to find out" is helpful. Sure. Go ahead. Roll with advantage/proficiency/whatever. Let's see where it takes us.

 

[Mannahnin]

After running Shadowdark for a year, I really like the implicit skill system there. Does it make sense you know how to do a thing, based on your class, ancestry or background? OK, treat that like a skill. If not, you don't.

The bookkeeping is really unnecessary, it turns out.

One of my B/X / OSE house rules:

Other Skills or Knowledge:

Most of the time your player knowledge will be used, but in instances where the character (based on class or other factors) might know a thing, I will normally simply inform you. Please feel free to speak up and remind me of such factors “Hey, would my Cleric know about this?” If I am unsure or think there’s a chance of a character knowing or achieving a non-combat task, we will roll a d6. The mechanic of rolling a d6 from Open Doors and Hear Noise and hoping for a 5 or 6 is generalized to other such circumstances.

 

[Aldarc]

I think this is one of the places where "being a fan of the PCs" and "playing to find out" is helpful. Sure. Go ahead. Roll with advantage/proficiency/whatever. Let's see where it takes us.

Agreed.

At some point, I should really make my own fantasy heartbreaker instead of keep hoping that someone else the magic one that scratches that itch. Games like Shadowdark, Nimble 5e, Dragonbane, ICRPG, Cairn/Mausritter, Black Hack all seem to be scratching around that area, but not quite hitting the spot for the sort of casual fantasy adventure that I would potentially want. I think that one problem is that some feel "a little too D&D" for my tastes when it comes to their choice of classes and ancestries, and I am not a fan of D&D's six attributes either. It's admittedly a bit trivial but it is what it is.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm all for physical, mental, spiritual being the attributes.... And just bonuses, no raw stat as it were.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm all for physical, mental, spiritual being the attributes.... And just bonuses, no raw stat as it were.

I prefer around three or four attributes.

In Odd-like Games (e.g., Into the Odd, Cairn, Mausritter), the attributes are usually just Strength, Dexterity, and Willpower. However, attributes in these games operate more like roll-under saving throws. That is the surprising thing about seeing three saves in Nimble 5e: DEX is tied to a single stat of Dexterity, STR is tied to a single stat of Strength, but then the Will save is the best of three different mental stats? That's a head-scratcher for me. It's a little too fiddly.

My own personal preference leans more towards a four-attribute array: Strength, Agility/Dexterity, Mind/Intellect, and Spirit/Willpower.