Nimble 5e

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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 don't think groups with these sorts of trust issues play "rulings, not rules" systems for very long, if they're even willing to play them to begin with.

It definitely requires a level of trust that some folks here at ENWorld say isn't their personal experience.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Pirate Borg gets close to this, but still probably has one to two stats more than it really needs.

 

[Reynard]

I really like Approaches as stats and I wish more games used them, rather than the Usual Suspect. Stuff Like Forceful, Subtle, Witty and Charming.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think groups with these sorts of trust issues play "rulings, not rules" systems for very long, if they're even willing to play them to begin with.

It definitely requires a level of trust that some folks here at ENWorld say isn't their personal experience.

FYI, one of my pet peeves is when people reduce this issue down to "trust issues," as I don't think that it depicts these people in good faith.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

One of my B/X / OSE house rules:

in instances where the character (based on class or other factors) might know a thing, I will normally simply inform you

Heartily approved. I don't like open-ended traits as a core gameplay mechanic, or background just acting as a bonus to a regular skill roll that will still be terrible because you're a farmer and knowing about farming is Int-based (so you should just ask the party Wizard about it)... But open-ended traits as a tool for GM to just tell you stuff regardless of your stats?

That is exactly how it should be done.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

FYI, one of my pet peeves is when people reduce this issue down to "trust issues," as I don't think that it depicts these people in good faith.

I don't mean it as an attack on anyone. But I also don't know how else to describe my perspective.

"Trust" in this case encompasses a jerk DM, but it can also be one who's newer to the game, one who's wary of giving up narrative control to players (possibly for good reasons), etc. If you've got a jerk player and the DM can't trust the player to not abuse more flexibility at the table, that's a trust issue, too.

And even when it's just "I prefer to have a highly detailed rule system, covering as many possible situations as possible," like late 3E had, that still boils down, IMO, to WotC saying "you know, we can't rely on all tables being able to wing these kinds of decisions without drama."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Heartily approved. I don't like open-ended traits as a core gameplay mechanic, or background just acting as a bonus to a regular skill roll that will still be terrible because you're a farmer and knowing about farming is Int-based (so you should just ask the party Wizard about it)... But open-ended traits as a tool for GM to just tell you stuff regardless of your stats?

That is exactly how it should be done.

Also, don't roll if there's no meaningful and interesting chance of failure. (Why can't the PC just know what time of year the NPC would likely have been planting sorghum?)

 

[Aldarc]

I don't mean it as an attack on anyone. But I also don't know how else to describe my perspective.

"Trust" in this case encompasses a jerk DM, but it can also be one who's newer to the game, one who's wary of giving up narrative control to players (possibly for good reasons), etc. If you've got a jerk player and the DM can't trust the player to not abuse more flexibility at the table, that's a trust issue, too.

And even when it's just "I prefer to have a highly detailed rule system, covering as many possible situations as possible," like late 3E had, that still boils down, IMO, to WotC saying "you know, we can't rely on all tables being able to wing these kinds of decisions without drama."

I think that people can have these sort of differences of opinion about what "makes sense" in good faith without necessarily having "trust issues." But these sort of problems can arise, which is one reason why I wanted to highlight them, because implicit skills are not a panacea.

 

[Aldarc]

I really like Approaches as stats and I wish more games used them, rather than the Usual Suspect. Stuff Like Forceful, Subtle, Witty and Charming.

I also kinda like what Ryuutama and Fabula Ultima do. They have four of the “Usual Suspects,” but they are rated by die size, and you will generally be rolling a combination of two though occasionally the same score twice. I think that lends itself, IMO, to approaches.

 

[Arilyn]

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.

I'd probably buy your game. Not a total heartbreaker.