Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5029337" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think in the context of a simulationist game that the 'rules' you are using you risk making the game more difficult to play than if you didn't have rules at all.  One big problem you are going to have is the player has no real grasp over the chance of failure.  Another is that you are going to have to ad hoc everything.  Another problem is that all your skills will be essentially passive skills - none of them do anything or grant any tangible benefit except what you decide they grant.  The last problem is that your simple system is going to ultimately be simple only in as much as it has a large number of unwritten rules, which actually isn't very simple at all.  More on this last one at the end.To begin with, make the system even simplier.  Also make the system more explicit and less dependent on DM fiat, both for your own sake (you won't have to make things up on the fly) and for the characters.  These are however somewhat mutually conflicting goals.No one has ranks in skills.  Every 'skill' check is an ability check.  So, there are know 'knowledge' skill checks.  Any knowledge skill check is an Intelligence check.All ability check DC's are as follows:DC 15 = EasyDC 20 = NormalDC 25 = HardDC 30 = Normal limit of human skillDC 40 = Superhuman featsYou get skills equal to the number of skill points the class gains per level.  So for example, a Rogue gets 8 skills and a Fighter gets 2 skills.  You gain 1 additional skill every 4 levels.  You may optionally have modify some classes to as a class feature gain bonus skills.  Rogue for example might gain a bonus skill at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th.  Skills are of one of three categories:General Training = +5 on skill checkSpecific Training = +10 on skill checkNarrow Specialty = +15 on skill checksYou decide ahead of time which class a chosen skill falls into.General Training: Sneaky, Atheletic, Educated, Alert, Disciplined, Boy Scout Stuff, Tradesman, Sailor, Savoir Faire, etc.Specific Training: Move Silently, Jump, Open Lock, History, Meditation, Appraisal, Masonry, Metal Working, Dance, Gamble, etc.Narrow Specialty: Broad Jump, Safecracker, Ancient Roman History, Hunt Deer, Paddle Canoe, Play Accordian, Ballet, Play Poker, Swordsmith, etc.On the one hand, we've got a flexible system.  You want to dance, roll Dexterity with an appropriate modifier.  If you want to know something about the history of dance, roll Intelligence with an appropriate modifier.However, you still have all sorts of problems.  The biggest one is that even though my simpler system is now quite specific and more detailed, it's still not as simple as it looks.  For example, when a player wants to jump across a pit, is it an intelligence check, dexterity check, or strength check?  Hurry up and decide, the game is waiting on you.  What did you decide?  Strength?  Is it going to be strength next time you have to decide, or will it be charisma next time?   Guess what, you've now created an unwritten rule, "In order to jump a distance, make a strength check."  Suppose we wanted to start listing the applicable attribute in alot of common situations?  Well, obviously, we'd add a couple of pages to this post as we composed the list.   Then the system wouldn't seem as simple any more.  But, the system still isn't simple if we don't list out these rulings, because even if we don't list them out, they are still there and players and the DM will still need to remember them (and if you forget, be sure that the player won't and will argue with you).  Likewise, if you dont' spell it out, be sure that the player will argue that the applicable attribute in this case is the one that the player finds most favorable.What if I want to use my atheletics to tumble through a square to avoid an AoO?  Are you going to allow that?  If so, then guess what, you've created another unwritten rule.Another problem you are going to run into is versimilitude.  Let's say I take a specific skill like 'Swordsmith'.  Now, I run into a problem where I want to make a shield, an axe, or a horseshoe.  You can either rule that I know nothing about making shields, axes, or horseshoes, or that I know enough about metal working that I can do one or more of the above with some lesser bonus.  The latter seems realistic, but if you do this, congradulations, you've just created a ruling that makes it dumb to choose general skills, since you've shown that you are willing to allow me to successfully argue for free general skills based on specific training.  Expect play to stop at every skill check while we argue over how applicable my specific skill is.  We could solve this of course by making every skill purchased at 3 levels - general, specific, and specialty - but this would again make the simple system more complex.PS: I'd like to see some of your existing improvements.</blockquote>

Verification