Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6070759" data-attributes="member: 50304">Sometimes simplicity and precision are competing interests. Having itemized skill lists and putting each task under exactly 1 silo of skill use is a precise way of measuring skills. It's also complicated and leads to various conflicts that have results that are anything but intuitive.Considering skills are not balanced against one another in any meaningful way (seriously, &quot;Use Rope&quot; vs. &quot;Persuade&quot; or &quot;Intimidate&quot; vs. &quot;Search&quot;?) precision loses a lot of its practical value in the D&amp;D Skill system.In the interests of simplicity and role-playing depth, D&amp;DNext should dump pretty much everything in the 3.X/4E style of skill management and look at how you had to handle the Profession Skill in 3.X and what Feats like &quot;Alertness&quot; in 4E were supposed to convey about your character.Seriously, consider how you can apply &quot;Profession: Sailor,&quot; or &quot;Profession: Merchant&quot; to a character. Try to quantify that vs. &quot;Use Rope&quot; or &quot;Balance.&quot; You can't. Why? Because &quot;Use Rope&quot; is a precise skill designation and &quot;Profession: Sailor&quot; is an intuitive skill designation.Can I use &quot;Use Rope&quot; on this check? I ask a very simple binary question: &quot;Does the task rest upon tying a rope?&quot; Y/NCan I use &quot;Profession: Sailor&quot; on this check? I ask a more nebulous question: &quot;Is this a task rest upon functions commonly performed by a sailor?&quot;Consider these factors:- Skill checks have been replaced by Ability Checks- Skills are no longer married to any one Ability- Skills are now married to a Background or ClassWhen I look at all those things laid out, it seems like various ability checks should have a lot of room for overlap between different categories of talents. Whether you get to use the Skill Die or not might be more dependent on context and even role-playing.While it may invoke shades of &quot;DM may I,&quot; the interaction elements of D&amp;D have always traditionally relied on back-and-forth between the DM and the PCs - from the days before even Non-weapon Proficiency to the era of Skill Challenges things have always been up in the air. It's probably better to allow players to pick a small number of intuitive talents / skills / experiences than a laundry list of narrow, mutually-exclusive silos.It also helps combat the &quot;Knowledge Bloat&quot; that can crop up in some games. More niche knowledge comes packaged in with experience. Someone who was a ranch hand knows a whole lot about the animals - how they behave, what they eat, what kind of illnesses and injuries they commonly suffer. He doesn't need Knowledge: Nature, Knowledge: Geography, Knowledge: Local, Ride, Spot, Use Rope, and Heal just to drive cattle 2 days to market. Further, his skill set shouldn't really clue him into the anatomy of dragons, how to treat an elf's sucking chest wound, or where the magistrate's estate is in Capital City.The kind of things Skill Checks cover in the last 12 years or so of D&amp;D is much more traditionally a free-wheeling activity. A context-sensitive approach with a couple of talent/skill descriptions is a happy medium between the &quot;butt-pull-background&quot; approach we used in OD&amp;D / AD&amp;D (no parameters to configure your character, just fudge something for a bonus) and the &quot;Oops, I forgot to take Use Rope for my Sailor&quot; (itemized, exclusive silos) approach of 3.X and the &quot;Sorry, but this game doesn't have a skill for that,&quot; (narrow knowledge skills, no professions) approach of 4E. This kind of context-sensitive application can probably be used as options in other parts of D&amp;D to make them more free-wheeling and less mechanically cumbersome on players that want lower-complexity play: be they newer players or players that prefer a more OD&amp;D feel to their games. - Marty Lund</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mlund, post: 6070759, member: 50304"] Sometimes simplicity and precision are competing interests. Having itemized skill lists and putting each task under exactly 1 silo of skill use is a precise way of measuring skills. It's also complicated and leads to various conflicts that have results that are anything but intuitive. Considering skills are not balanced against one another in any meaningful way (seriously, "Use Rope" vs. "Persuade" or "Intimidate" vs. "Search"?) precision loses a lot of its practical value in the D&D Skill system. In the interests of simplicity and role-playing depth, D&DNext should dump pretty much everything in the 3.X/4E style of skill management and look at how you had to handle the [B]Profession[/B] Skill in 3.X and what Feats like "Alertness" in 4E were [I]supposed[/I] to convey about your character. Seriously, consider how you can apply "Profession: Sailor," or "Profession: Merchant" to a character. Try to quantify that vs. "Use Rope" or "Balance." You can't. Why? Because "Use Rope" is a [B]precise[/B] skill designation and "Profession: Sailor" is an [B]intuitive[/B] skill designation. Can I use "Use Rope" on this check? I ask a very simple binary question: "Does the task rest upon tying a rope?" Y/N Can I use "Profession: Sailor" on this check? I ask a more nebulous question: "Is this a task rest upon functions commonly performed by a sailor?" Consider these factors: - Skill checks have been replaced by Ability Checks - Skills are no longer married to any one Ability - Skills are now married to a Background or Class When I look at all those things laid out, it seems like various ability checks should have a lot of room for overlap between different categories of talents. Whether you get to use the Skill Die or not might be more dependent on context and even role-playing. While it may invoke shades of "DM may I," the interaction elements of D&D have always traditionally relied on back-and-forth between the DM and the PCs - from the days before even Non-weapon Proficiency to the era of Skill Challenges things have always been up in the air. It's probably better to allow players to pick a small number of intuitive talents / skills / experiences than a laundry list of narrow, mutually-exclusive silos. It also helps combat the "Knowledge Bloat" that can crop up in some games. More niche knowledge comes packaged in with experience. Someone who was a ranch hand knows a whole lot about the animals - how they behave, what they eat, what kind of illnesses and injuries they commonly suffer. He doesn't need Knowledge: Nature, Knowledge: Geography, Knowledge: Local, Ride, Spot, Use Rope, and Heal just to drive cattle 2 days to market. Further, his skill set shouldn't really clue him into the anatomy of dragons, how to treat an elf's sucking chest wound, or where the magistrate's estate is in Capital City. The kind of things Skill Checks cover in the last 12 years or so of D&D is much more traditionally a free-wheeling activity. A context-sensitive approach with a couple of talent/skill descriptions is a happy medium between the "butt-pull-background" approach we used in OD&D / AD&D (no parameters to configure your character, just fudge something for a bonus) and the "Oops, I forgot to take Use Rope for my Sailor" (itemized, exclusive silos) approach of 3.X and the "Sorry, but this game doesn't have a skill for that," (narrow knowledge skills, no professions) approach of 4E. This kind of context-sensitive application can probably be used as options in other parts of D&D to make them more free-wheeling and less mechanically cumbersome on players that want lower-complexity play: be they newer players or players that prefer a more OD&D feel to their games. - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]

Verification