Skills As "Weapons"

[Stormonu]

Why make a distinction between physical hit points and social hit points?

If you have just one set, you could batter an opponent down to 1/2 hp with a weapon and then use Intimidate to make him back down the rest of the way, "winning" the fight. Or perhaps the reverse; the party negotiates with a leader for a bit and it breaks out in a brawl. The brawl ends rather quickly, as the leader is already worn down from the preceding talks and "decides" the character's talking points are now worth accepting.

Of course, you would have to decouple 0 hp or less from "dying" to merely "defeated", with the DM & Players agreeing how to rule what the defeat entails.

(Oy, this could give new meaning to being "talked to death")

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why make a distinction between physical hit points and social hit points?

If you have just one set, you could batter an opponent down to 1/2 hp with a weapon and then use Intimidate to make him back down the rest of the way, "winning" the fight. Or perhaps the reverse; the party negotiates with a leader for a bit and it breaks out in a brawl. The brawl ends rather quickly, as the leader is already worn down from the preceding talks and "decides" the character's talking points are now worth accepting.

Of course, you would have to decouple 0 hp or less from "dying" to merely "defeated", with the DM & Players agreeing how to rule what the defeat entails.

(Oy, this could give new meaning to being "talked to death")

I'm actually quite fond of the idea! Though, as you say, it does change what "hit points" represents, making them a more abstract measure of luck, skill, endurance, etc. You might have issues conceptually with things like CON adding to your ability to endure both sword blows and convincing arguments (you'd expect perhaps WIS or CHA to do that), too.

Still, it's a good fit for things like 4e's "martial healing."

Even if you had different "point pools" for them, I'd use surges to refill any of them, leaving surges as a longer-term resource for replenishing your resources (whatever resources you have happened to deplete).

 

[LostSoul]

Yeah, it's basically a resolution model where you accumulate points of X until it beats the score of the enemies (Y). In order to gain points of X, you need to roll a d20 vs. a DC (perhaps even using existing defenses: Will for social skills, Fortitude for exploration skills)

With your social skills, you'd gain points of Persuasiveness with each use, until you beat the opponent's Stubbornness (or somesuch). With exploration skills, you'd gain points of Speed with each use, until you've overcome the area's Distance (or somesuch).

Note that it'd largely only be used to resolve conflict. In the same way you don't need to roll an attack to cut down a tree with an axe, you wouldn't have to roll Diplomacy to order a beer.

This is how skill challenges work - or at least how I use them. I set the number of successes you need by making a Reaction Roll (or setting one if I already know). That's the NPC's obstinacy. I use these kinds of social skill challenges often - my last gave had 5 of them, and no combat.

I'd also want the argument and the environment to "fight back," but that's sort of an extra layer of complexity.

NPCs can still act, like normal.

Social interactions are quite complex and if you try to "model" them using some kind of system without player judgement or interpretation I don't know if it'll be successful. Beware simply matching skill checks to DCs and subtracting HP - that's boring.

Look into other games that already do this. Sorcerer and the games that were designed in its tradition are good ones to check out.

 

[Stormonu]

While it might be more of a stretch, the above might also work for a good number of skill challenges. Instead of X number of skill checks, you keep rolling and dealing damage to the problem (convincing the baron to see your way, putting distance between you and the giants chasing you, etc.).

The price for failure would be that the character takes damage (based on the obstacle's difficulty - the Baron might do d4 to d8 depending on how much power he wields, the giant example might deal d12). Possibly even effects (dazed, slowed, etc.)

This allows you to change options in the middle of the encounter without too much shifting gears.

Perhaps in the case of the Baron, say an assassin attacks - the party may already be partly exhausted from the conference. If the assassin wounds the Baron, but is defeated, it may be all the easier to convince him to help now. "See, my Lord, Kalarel wants you dead!"

Or the reverse - a smooth-talking worm-tongued noble enters the conversation, his words "healing" or restoring the Baron's resolve. Now the party not only has to win over the Baron, they've got to shut this guy up.


In the other example, you may decide to turn and face the giants. Both of you may already be down a handful of hit points from your exertion of trying to escape. Will you try to talk them down, trick them or flat out fight them now that you and they are tired of running? What's gone before can be used to further apply to the situation at hand.

 

[Argyle King]

a modular rule set

the ability to add complexity with optional rules

a skill based system



If the next article talks about using 3d6 for everything, I'm pretty sure that I already own the game Mearls is designing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

a modular rule set

the ability to add complexity with optional rules

a skill based system



If the next article talks about using 3d6 for everything, I'm pretty sure that I already own the game Mearls is designing.

HERO? GURPS?

Really, about the only innovation I'm seeing is applying these ideas to D&D. And knowing how much D&D players have loooooooved games like HERO and GURPS, I'm not sure why he's musing about these ideas.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course, you would have to decouple 0 hp or less from "dying" to merely "defeated", with the DM & Players agreeing how to rule what the defeat entails.

(Oy, this could give new meaning to being "talked to death")

Perhaps being taken to 0 HP earns you a "Consequence", with the type of consequence being based on the method used to defeat you.

Yes, I do think D&D should be more like FATE, why do you ask?

 

[nedjer]

The danger of skills-based designs is that they can allow a player to cherry pick skills to break the system. This is akin to the danger of any multi-classing ruleset as well.

Maybe not if the system is designed to be tuned, i.e. if an option's being used to break the system the system is retuned for later sessions to recalibrate. If the expectation is that rules can be switched on or off to groups' preferences balance doesn't have to come down to a head-to-head where the player has to be broken to save the rules from begin broken.

An example, in my fantasy game there's a snowball spell which if it hits an opponent, makes them a bit mad and choose a physical option as their next action. This is a total lifesaver in solo or small team games where a powerful spellcaster can build devastating spell chains.

However, with larger parties there's a temptation to use snowballs to take out 'enemy artillery' by completely block opponents spell chains. The balance could be corrected by ditching the spell totally but players love it.

Switching it on for solo and off for party would work. However, if the rules are played really flexibly the option of presenting a party with a group of opponents who knock out all their spell chains quickly encourages parties to watch that their tactics don't become common knowledge through overuse . . .

 

[nedjer]

HERO? GURPS?

Really, about the only innovation I'm seeing is applying these ideas to D&D. And knowing how much D&D players have loooooooved games like HERO and GURPS, I'm not sure why he's musing about these ideas.

Haven't read them all through but the dude's posting QR codes. Looks like one thing on the outside, another on the inside

 

[Janx]

Maybe not if the system is designed to be tuned, i.e. if an option's being used to break the system the system is retuned for later sessions to recalibrate. If the expectation is that rules can be switched on or off to groups' preferences balance doesn't have to come down to a head-to-head where the player has to be broken to save the rules from begin broken.

the problem I'm talking about has more to do with the age old problem of trying to let people use parts from various classes.

The stereo type has every PC taking magic skills, fighting skills, and thief skills because the PC is always better than somebody who focussed (and effectively overspent on redundant skills).

This is partly why the Class system persists. it forcibly silos a PC into "a strong fighter", a "sneaky thief" or a "casty wizard".

Without any siloing (and poor skill design), I'll spend my 8 skills at max ranks by buying longsword, spellcasting, and the rest in thief skills.

Because a fighter who buys multiple weapon skills is wasting points when he only uses one weapon most of the time.

It's a solveable problem as a designer, but anytime somebody thinks to take D&D into the realm of Skills based, it needs to be remembered.

This trends into the "game balance" debate that all classes must be equal. barring specialized or novelty classes, the all the core classes/stereotypes should be viable and balanced across each other. If the game design is so poor that every player always plays the same thing, because the other classes are poorly designed, that reveals a flaw.