Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 5899223" data-attributes="member: 6681948">The other side of this becomes "no checks, no rules, GM decides".  This leaves the players unable to play characters whose skills differ markedly from their own.  As an example, we see the games now where you don't roll diplomacy or intimidate - the GM decides whether you have persuaded the NPC based on your player's arguments.  Great immersion right?Well, until the shy wallflower player wants to play a charming and savvy rogue, sinks their best attribute into CHA, puts all their skill points into interaction-focused skills, and then discovers that the DM decides on his character's success based on the player's demonstrated skills.  Meanwhile, the eloquent and glib player focuses all of his character's resources into combat.  He gets to succeed in combat because of his character's abilities, and in social settings because of his player abilities (despite the fact his character has a 6 CHA and no social skills whatsoever).I would see that a bit differently.  As a character, I'm going to try to use the skills I'm good at because I also want to maximize my chances of success.  And very skilled people can often extrapolate those skills into uses not considered by others.  "This is how my character uses his Streetwise skill" is the rules-based explanation.Mu character is going to focus on what he's good at.  That savvy and charming rogue will try to solve problems with charm, not force, because he is charming, and not strong.  If he needs someone beaten up, he won't use his 6 STR and 8 CON to administer a lengthy beating.  He'll use his 14 INT and 18 CHA to persuade some local bruiser to administer the beating for him.What I fear from descriptions to date is that a +2 static bonus is not going to differentiate character skills much.  The result stands a fair chance of becoming Character A (good stat + skill) attempts the action.  Roll fails.  Well, Character B (good stat, no skill) takes a run at it.  Character C (average stat, no skill) and Character D (poor stat, no skill) will try afterwards in the hopes of a lucky roll. So the savvy Rogue with a bonus to persuasion tries first, with a +6 bonus (18 CHA and +2 skill).  Oh!  an 8 + 6 = 14, so not enough.  Well, the Priest lacks the skill, but his CHA is pretty good - he'll give it a whirl.  +3 from 16 CHA, so 11 + 3  = 14 - too bad!  Drat - well, let's let the Wizard try.  He has a 10 CHA and no skill, so flat roll.  A 12 - not enough.  Well, that leaves Stinky the Barbarian Dwarf, with his 4 CHA.  May as well give it a whirl...wow - a 19 - 3 = 16 - he made it!The current model suggests that a reasonably challenging DC for the Rogue will not be achieved by Stinky, but this system seems to imply a much reduced spread between character abilities.  That makes the dice more important than the character's skills and abilities.Now maybe we're talking about a base characteristic roll, in which case the savvy rogue succeeds automatically, as does the priest.  So there's no possibility that the target can resist their persuasion - no real challenge - and again the Priest is just as good as the Rogue, so we have better differentiation, but not by a lot.How different do we want characters to be, and how much of that differentiation are we prepared to sacrifice in the interest of simplicity?</do></blockquote>

Verification