Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 8567520" data-attributes="member: 90374">I do see two types of traps here as well. One is in the application, the other is in the category. For example, players not knowing they can explode C4 in the air is an application trap. That type of trap lies in the rules descriptions and the expected use of concept. I mean, how often do you see in the movies or actual instruction of C4 use that its tossed in the air and detonated? Most folks imagine it is carefully placed and detonated from a safe distance. This is one of those things that is either not explained by the rules, or is an exploitive use outside the intended purpose. In a CRPG these become optimal exploits, in TTRPGs the GM can step in a make a ruling on RAI. Category is the trap that is designed in a series like performance as a skill. A player has to weigh taking performance over things like investigate, thievery, sense motive, etc.. Performance in this case is suboptimal in its usefulness as a problem solving skill. In PF1, performance allowed the Bard to merge several skills into one category. Which begs the question, should performance be a skill or just a bard class feature to interact with the skill system? Speaking of feats, the category trap is most obvious in the 3E/PF1 era of D&D (PF2 kept this legacy item unfortunately). Application is actually pretty easy to resolve in two ways. The first is with a rulings over rules take. In this design, the designer encourages the players to use their imagination to find interesting ways to interact with the systems and mechanics. The GM is encouraged to ensure a fair application remains consistent at the table. The other is obvious rules over rulings. In this design space, the designer needs to come up with compressive rules regarding the mechanics that inform the users what is and isn't acceptable.      In the category section a designer needs to be mindful of what mechanics they are comparing. Using the newly popular three pillars dynamic as an example, you want to design chargen parts in an even distribution. Putting all or most options in one bucket, like feats, can be tricky. In this design you are forcing a player to decide between being better at combat, exploration, or social aspects of the game. Some folks expect to be able to play in all pillars, in this case, the design is best to be spread out between items. For example, ancestry contains social mechanics, background contains exploration aspects, and class combat aspects. If your design intention is that one player is the combatant, another the explorer, and a third the social character, then you really want to spell that out in your rulebook descriptions.   Thats the mindset I'm in from the OP.</blockquote>

Verification