Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 8567459" data-attributes="member: 20564">A different take on the design trap for performance is assuming that just because it fits the English definition of a skill that is should be bought with the same currency.Having perform, crafting, professional, and other &quot;non-adventurer&quot; skills that would not be used on a regular basis to &quot;solve&quot; but still help (a) enrich and define the character, and (b) can come up occasionally or in a complementary/synergistic manner can be the right design choice if it isn't using up the same character creation/advancement currency as the &quot;solve&quot; skills.This could potentially be expanded to other pillars of play.&nbsp; To use D&amp;D 5e as an example, all characters are expected to be able to contribute during combat, but it is acceptable that during other scenes that some challenges are met by a subset of the party or even just one expert (perhaps with a helper), such as tracking.&nbsp; If a system requires spending the same currency for those different aspects of play, you can end up with characters who can over-focus on combat (which is the densest mechanical type of scene) and be unable to assist (and therefore possibly bored) during other types of scenes, or the opposite where becoming good at types of scenes that require several skills may make them less able to carry their expected weight during whole-party scens like combat.&nbsp; 5e solves this by making Skills of less import during combat, but we still see a higher preponderance of characters taking skills like Perception that help avoid some nasty combat situations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 8567459, member: 20564"] A different take on the design trap for performance is assuming that just because it fits the English definition of a skill that is should be bought with the same currency. Having perform, crafting, professional, and other "non-adventurer" skills that would not be used on a regular basis to "solve" but still help (a) enrich and define the character, and (b) can come up occasionally or in a complementary/synergistic manner can be the right design choice if it isn't using up the same character creation/advancement currency as the "solve" skills. This could potentially be expanded to other pillars of play. To use D&D 5e as an example, all characters are expected to be able to contribute during combat, but it is acceptable that during other scenes that some challenges are met by a subset of the party or even just one expert (perhaps with a helper), such as tracking. If a system requires spending the same currency for those different aspects of play, you can end up with characters who can over-focus on combat (which is the densest mechanical type of scene) and be unable to assist (and therefore possibly bored) during other types of scenes, or the opposite where becoming good at types of scenes that require several skills may make them less able to carry their expected weight during whole-party scens like combat. 5e solves this by making Skills of less import during combat, but we still see a higher preponderance of characters taking skills like Perception that help avoid some nasty combat situations. [/QUOTE]

Verification