Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5263106" data-attributes="member: 22779">Actually I don't.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />What I proposed above was largely how I get around the 3e skill system in order to run naval based campaigns.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I actually agree with Ariosto in the point that the group will likely not have exact numbers to work off of.&nbsp; But, in common skill resolution, any ruling will likely become a table standard rule.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; There will always be extenuating, circumstantial modifiers, sure, but, the basic mechanic will remain the same.And that's my entire point.&nbsp; You don't actually gain anything in a rules absent system.&nbsp; The only difference is in the first time an action is attempted, the players do not know quite how this will be adjudicated.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; A single time that the players are &quot;surprised&quot; by how something is resolved?&nbsp; Is it worth it?&nbsp; IMO, no, it's not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5263106, member: 22779"] 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. :D 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification