Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[Hussar]

You might find this worrisome -- that you and I think alike in this -- but that is actually a scheme I considered for RCFG. I only rejected it because, in the end, I decided that something closer to the 3e scheme worked better overall.

I lowered skill ranks, and included a -4 Untrained penalty, so that buying 1 rank was essentially the same as buying 5. (Reason to spread your skills around, and have at least a smattering of many skills.) Max skill ranks are 2 + class level. A basic skill set is determined by your class, so you have fewer skill points to track and decide on at CharGen.


RC

Actually I don't. I really think that our viewpoints are much closer than we probably admit to, but, for some reason, we always seem to find other stuff to disagree about.

What I proposed above was largely how I get around the 3e skill system in order to run naval based campaigns. If you play 3e by the book, then every sailor has to be an Expert because of the number of skills he needs - climb, balance, Profession:Sailor, Use Rope, Kn Geography, possibly Kn Nature if he wants to go fishing. Commoners just didn't have enough skill points to be able to be sailors out of the gate and I didn't want every sailor to be third or fourth level NPC's.

So, I took the Profession skills and reworked them so that they broadly applied. If you had Profession Sailor and wanted to do something nautical while on a ship, that's what you rolled against (or pick another skill if it was better). And, if you were off the ship but could make a good case for it being something a sailor could do, I'd whack in a circumstance penalty and let you use Profession.

Worked well.

Pemerton. I actually agree with Ariosto in the point that the group will likely not have exact numbers to work off of. But, in common skill resolution, any ruling will likely become a table standard rule. If I rule that jumping requires a Save vs Paralysis, then every time the players want to jump, they're likely going to expect to make a Save vs Paralysis. There will always be extenuating, circumstantial modifiers, sure, but, the basic mechanic will remain the same.

And that's my entire point. You don't actually gain anything in a rules absent system. The only difference is in the first time an action is attempted, the players do not know quite how this will be adjudicated. But, after that first jump, from the player's perspective, the rules absent and the rules present systems are identical.

So, again, what do you gain by not having the task resolution mechanics in the first place? A single time that the players are "surprised" by how something is resolved? Is it worth it? IMO, no, it's not.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I wholly ascribe to the theory that "restrictions, not options!" is fun... sometimes. Wherever it helps set limits on characters for the purpose of setting immersion (e.g. "in my world, dwarves are never magic-users") or the simple practicality of quick character creation (e.g. "your options are fighter, mage, cleric, and thief; unless you want to be a demihuman, then you can pick elf, dwarf, or hobbit"), restrictions can be a very good thing.

I like a small, broad list of character classes. It's traditional to go with four options: the meat-shield, the skill-monkey, the blaster-caster, and the divine duct-tape. Personally, I favor the notion of including at least one class for every ability score (for example, Str-Fighter, Dex-Thief, Con-Monk, Int-Mage, Wis-Cleric, Cha-Bard). But the point is, each class ought to be relatively broad in the number of fantasy archetypes it can cover. No need for paladins, rangers, cavaliers, barbarians, swashbucklers, and gladiators. They're all just bloody Fighters.

I like a small, broad list of skills. Ditching skills altogether seems extreme to me, and in any case, it smacks of that smug OSR ideology. A well-designed and widely-applicable task resolution mechanic is a thing of incalculable value to the game referee who doesn't want to spend ten minutes dithering over the minutiae of trap-detection. Conversely, skill lists which try to be all-encompassing (like Non-Weapon Proficiencies) are doomed to fail utterly. I would argue that even 3rd edition's skill list is just a bit broad, and that's not even counting the indefinite number of sub-skills lumped under Craft, Profession, Knowledge, and Perform. Rather, the pared-down skill lists of SWSE and 4th edition are close to ideal. In my own games, I've got it down to a dozen skills (Athletics, Craft, Civics, Diplomacy, Entertain, Knowledge, Medicine, Outdoors, Perception, Pilot, Stealth, Trade), and I've yet to encounter a situation where I was unable to find an appropriate skill check to roll, or where a player creating his character was unable to represent the background he desired whilst picking from that skill list.

I like the "race as class" paradigm for which Basic/Expert D&D is known. In high fantasy novels (and when I play D&D, my chief concern is emulating the feel of high fantasy novels), humans are versatile. Human heroes have warriors, thieves, priests, and magicians among them. But the dwarves are just warriors, and the elves are somewhat magical warriors, and the halflings are reluctant warriors with a tendency to go unnoticed by Big Folk. I want my game rules to facilitate these archetypes. What I don't want is a game-world full of atypical weirdo-heroes, from the simple dwarven-wizard-because-it's-cool, to the good-aligned-orc/troll/drow-because-it's-cool, to the half-dragon-half-whatever. Instead of creating a memorable character with a real personality, maybe even an "archetype with a twist" character, the players would instead be tempted to play against type at every opportunity, or to come up with the weirdest idea possible. That's not conducive to fun.

I do NOT like straightjacket rules. When I first quit playing d20 System games and switched back to Basic D&D, I did so only after promising something to myself. I said to myself, "Jack, you're about to quit playing 3rd edition and switch to game that doesn't even have multiclassing in it. What if somebody wants to play a human fighting-mage, or thieving-priest? What then, smarty-pants?" Well, I added that skill system of mine to the game, so anybody can play a thieving-anything if they want to. The rogue will just be better at it. But I also had to make sure that there were no class restrictions on what weapons or armor a character could use. If a wizard or a monk wants to clank around in plate-mail and swing a battle-axe, that's fine with me. If a cleric wants to pick up a pointy stabby and go to town on the forces of darkness, more power to him. It's okay; the fighter will always be better at it.

Restrictions are well and good, right up until they fly in the face of logic and kill any sense of verisimilitude. At that point, go ahead and run the option. It'll probably me more fun.

 

[Reynard]

I like a small, broad list of skills. Ditching skills altogether seems extreme to me, and in any case, it smacks of that smug OSR ideology. A well-designed and widely-applicable task resolution mechanic is a thing of incalculable value to the game referee...

Skills are not necessary for a "widely applicable task resolution system". For example, "flip a coin -- heads you succeed" is about as widely applicable a task resolution system as you might like. I prefer the "roll a d6" myself, because you can modify the probability a bit more (dwarves are good at finding traps, frex). Still, though, no skills necessary.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In my own Basic D&D mashup, I have separated skills into broad archetype groupings which can be chosen in sets. There are only 3 classes; fighter, magic user, and cleric but there are several variations on each of them that are unique.

Skill sets are primary, secondary, or tertiary. Primary= competence on par with your class abilities, secondary= 1/2 your level , tertiary = 1/4 your level.

Level 1: pick a primary skill set.

Level 6; pick a secondary skill set

Level 12: pick a tertiary skill set

Skill sets are divided into useful jobs such as: assassin, ranger, thief, explorer, diplomat, athelete, scholar, healer, etc.

Any class may choose any skill sets desired. This way you can quickly define what things your character is good, pretty good, or mediocre at without tracking skill points or tying it to a rigid numerical resolution system.

So if you choose "ranger" as your primary set for your fighter you have a fighter well skilled in "woodsy" things without needing another class.

There are also background skills which cover professions, crafting, and performing which are chosen and augmented through the levels.

I have the math for a system to tie this framework to mostly developed but it isn't needed to implement the basic idea.

 

[Remathilis]

Just tossing out my .02 on the idea of options.

I was a All-Options DM, but as 3.5 drew to a close, there were too many options to even consider. I moved to 4e, but there were initally too few (now I think that's a problem fixed).

Since then, I've looked at 3 games.

* Pathfinder: A Great "Core Only" point where I can limit options to a handful, then expand slowly as needed. No "must allow supplement X" pressures from players; just what I "choose to convert" or not becomes allowed.
* Basic Fantasy: A rules-lite Basic game with 4 races and 4 classes (5 if you count multi-classes F/Mu) with plenty of optional material again I can choose to filter in if I want.
* Essentials: The idea of approaching a re-touched 4e with limited starting options and expanding as needed (via older and newer books) is also greatly appealing.

Like the OP, I like the idea of Archtypes standing out. I want more classic parties of Fighters, Elves, and Thieves, not Warforged, Alchemists, and Battleminds. Something a little more generic, and let me flavor them as I like, rather than having hundreds subtle variants on the same theme. Give me a couple diverse archtypes to play with and I can do the rest.

So in that regard, limiting options is good. Giving PCs the ability to add thier own shade to each option, better.

 

[Ariosto]

Then I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote. Repeatedly. I do not want a 3e system of skill resolution with a separate rule for everything. I have repeatedly stated that I want a single (or at least a small number) rule that covers almost all situations.

And I do not want a cucumber-and-watercress sandwich -- but, of course, you were not suggesting that I did!

No, I was observing that what seemed to be your point was that the GM should NOT be making judgments. It is that to which you have repeatedly objected!

The perceptible point, regardless of the number of rules, is that they should be so explicitly codified and definitive as to obviate the GM discretion that -- so you have claimed -- necessitates "gaming the GM".

(The actual claim you made was that not including the 3e-ish game of "builds" necessitates "gaming the GM". To judge from your subsequent denial, you apparently did not understand just what you were doing. When even you are so confused, perhaps a bit of confusion on the part of the rest of us -- who have as basis only what you write -- is understandable.)

So, your remarks above do not at all address what I wrote.

Again, what have you gained?

Back up and read your quote just prior to that. The second paragraph after /snip reads:

You have also received the answer, that what he have gained by not having a given table or paragraph or several paragraphs in a book is not needing to look up that table or paragraph or several paragraphs in a book.

The paragraph following reads:

What do we gain by looking up something in a book when we already have an understanding that is pleasing to us?

So, here you are ignoring (a) the answer to your question, and (b) the question posed to you.

Where you are going wrong is that you think this is some sort of 3e vs older edition thing. My point is, BOTH ARE NOT AS GOOD.

Your point, like a vampire, seems to transform into mist whenever it threatens to be substantive enough to engage in conversation. I went "wrong" when that was precisely where your rhetoric was leading! I have endeavored to follow your twisting and turning, and it most certainly was not I who raised "3e" here. It is you, Hussar, who have repeatedly -- in such statements as "I disagree" -- drawn the lines of opposition.

 

[Ariosto]

The bits of the text wear ...

It is not a give-away. Magic-users don't get whatever they want handed to them on a silver platter.

As one who happens greatly to have enjoyed playing magic-users, I heartily endorse that! I certainly prefer it to the interminable litany of complaints about how magic is "broken" in some other games.

I don't think I drew a contrast with more recent editions. I was simply responding to your comment that the GM does not make items available, and disagreeing with it.

Actually, you were disagreeing with my disagreement with Hussar's claim that "you didn't get to choose items - those were provided by the DM." That was part of his claim that somehow the very opposite of "build" in 1E AD&D was actually "build" a la WotC-D&D. The only shred of sense or relevance was that we had in fact been discussing the effect of the game of builds on the broader game.

Hussar's point, apart from the bizarre confusion as to what "build" means, was that

since the player had almost zero control over the "build" he couldn't play the game.

This would hardly be remarkable if were not different in 3e/4e!

Now, I have seen the suggestions from some players that, instead of going on adventures to acquire magic items, they should be free to equip their characters on demand with whatever they desire, subject to a "build" economy -- and (here is where you seem to find a distinction) without any limits imposed by the DM.

That may or may not become "the rule" in 5e, but if the written rules of 3e or 4e do not involve the DM in deciding what is in the world and where, then I certainly misread them!

Indeed, the intructions I have actually seen are to be much more careful in ensuring that "inappropriate" goodies do not fall into players' hands. The 4e "treasure parcels" are heavy-handed micro-management by comparison with the DM-to-DM advice, based on experience -- and few had more! -- that Gygax shared in the DMG.

Anyhow, the really outrageous notion is this one that however many millions of people "couldn't play the game" (and presumably still can't, for all that we have fun doing something or other with it).

What is lost on Hussar is that embarking on risky ventures to get the treasures we want is the game! When we are doing that, we are in fact playing the game!

 

[Ariosto]

And, if you were off the ship but could make a good case for it being something a sailor could do, I'd whack in a circumstance penalty and let you use Profession.

Isn't that "Gaming the GM"?

 

[Ariosto]

And that's my entire point. You don't actually gain anything in a rules absent system.

Therefore, we've got to have a written rule for every damned thing.

"Oh, no!" Hussar is certain to protest. "I mean only for the things that I am inclined to argue over!"

See, this deal of "if you can make a good case for it being something a sailor would do" is -- in general principle -- pretty standard stuff. The big difference in old D&D is that usually we're not so concerned with "making a case" in the first place. We mainly just assume that adventurers can do stuff.

This premise of yours that so much more must be called into question and subject to dice-rolls is a fundamental disjunction, and much of your ax-grinding seems to be in service of that basic assumption.

What it comes down to, really, is where the game is.

The old D&D game by design is not about a whole lot of things. If someone really wants a game about knitting, then D&D would not leap to my mind! However, if the employment of mighty warriors and wizards in production of sweaters and mittens somehow did become important in a given campaign, then I am sure that rules concerning that would be added.

In a more usual campaign, it's unlikely that anyone is chomping at the bit to prevent your character from knitting. Characters do all sorts of things as "color" that are not of any strategic importance.

Rolling dice just to confirm that, yes, 9 is greater than 5 is just not where some people see the interest. There are particular things interestingly treated that way, but it is not the constant preoccupation of players.

The greatest interest, and what tends to occupy the bulk of time, is in investigation and decision-making. Combat takes up the bulk of dice-rolling, and the reasons it takes up much should not be totally foreign to those it pleases to have it take up more.

 

[Ariosto]

For example, "flip a coin -- heads you succeed" is about as widely applicable a task resolution system as you might like.

It sure is!

It's possible, though, that some people think the chance too high for some things, which ought to be unlikely but not impossible. Some people might even think that some things should not require a toss at all.

The basic distinction of old D&D from other games was that it was a game of endless possibilities. With an ordinary board game or card game, or the most formal sort of miniatures game, there is no need for someone to take the "GM" job.

Does the GM stop making rulings with a more complicated RPG rules set? That has not been my experience, except to the extent that the game has in practice been reduced to a board game.