|
mastershakeman posted:I know you're being sarcastic but I do appreciate the difference between a sprinter and endurance runner. And if you want to be both go nuts. And that's without even addressing every other type of athletics. mastershakeman posted:I'd rather learn skills as my character progresses, not via writing up my background. That way even dirtfarmer Jr can learn to read and climb ropes and alchemy and whatever else. You know, I usualy don't agree with you. But I mostly agree with you on both these things. I prefer having lots of specific skills instead of a few all-encompassing skills. And I prefer learning skills as you go instead of just spending points at the start and being stuck with skills that turn out less useful than you hoped. That's what Burning Wheel does, and it's great. And I do the same thing a bit differently in Strike. Although in both cases you DO start with things in addition to being able to learn them freely later.
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Why do you have this weird belief you can never change or add to the backgrounds? Start off with whatever combat engine is going (ideally a fairly light one) and a few background points or whatever. Maybe not even background points, maybe just have the backgrounsd be a flat y/n like Strike! has. As the game goes on your backgrounds change, or you can occasionally add a new one. I DID explicitly say there'd be set in stone specific skills involving the dungeon crawling, you know. The main goal is that your non-dungeoneering abilities are entirely divided from your dungeoneering abilities, so you never have to choose between "I know a lot about farming" and "I can disarm traps." None of this "I'm a fighter so I need high strength so I won't be a good diplomat." In a dungeon I am good at murdering with a sword, feats of strength, identifying monsters, and disarming traps. Outside of a dungeon I am good at talking to the lower classes, praising the gods, and charming cute boys.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Hey DM Athletics should let me do athletic stuff. It's not like long lists of fiddly, hyperspecific skills are immune to stupid GM arguments anyway, and my experience is it simply shifts the tone of the argument to two people quoting dictionary definitions at one another as the GM asserts that your NWP in mountain climbing doesn't actually help you scale the wizard's tower.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
homullus posted:Lightning rail cars weigh far less than traditional rail cars, because their entire locomotive system is pretty light. drat shame this got overlooked, because 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Why do you have this weird belief you can never change or add to the backgrounds? I will say that I don't like any system where you add a thing every couple of levels or spend points or whatever because your less-useful choices that you made (perhaps because it was important to your character, or because you didn't realize the DM would ignore that side of things) stick around being less-effective. Retraining only fixes half of the issue. That's what's great about Burning Wheel and all the systems derived from it: if you use a skill a lot, you will get good at it. If you don't use it a lot, it won't improve. So it doesn't matter much what skills you choose to put points into initially because over time you get good at the things you put effort into.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
But you're also limited by the skills you're given the chance to use.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
^^^Your choice of skills is an implicit nod to the DM that you want to use those skills. The game makes it very clear about using all the parts of a mastershakeman posted:I'd rather learn skills as my character progresses, not via writing up my background. That way even dirtfarmer Jr can learn to read and climb ropes and alchemy and whatever else. 13th Age specifically allows that. You can transfer points into a new background while you're leveling up. It's not the best system for simulating that feel I'll admit. I wasn't kidding about that Rolemaster comment. RM is built better to simulate the differences between, say, an endurance runner and Speedy Gonzales than D&D and its more abstracted subsystems.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
theironjef posted:That's why I like Palladium so much. Nothing tells people more about my character than his 74% (76% would convey a totally different person!) proficiency in Boat Building, and that while he has Pilot: Boat, he lacks Pilot: Airboat. Boats travel in the water, airboats travel over the water. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:Boats travel in the water, airboats travel over the water.  Moorcock/Elric nerd poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:You forgetting the The Ship which Sails over Land and Sea you fantasy scrub! It's Palladium so it's most likely an MDC armored airboat with the two women from the Dallas Connection poster as drawn by Rob Liefeld on it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If you're talking about 13th Age, well you can't add to them unless you spend a Feat. So I'll assume you're talking about a hypothetical system that is like 13th age but has some undisclosed differences that you can use to move goalposts? I'm not trying to make this some kinda weird argument, and there really aren't any moving goalposts. My initial statement was simply "I'd like a game where the skill system for out-of-exploration poo poo was custom backgrounds the players make." That's it. And to be frank any argument about "Well the DM can just build the adventure to utilize the skills the players chose" doesn't suddenly go away with player-made backgrounds! I'm just so loving done with having to choose between actually playing what most of the game is built around (combat and exploration) or making actual interesting characters that I wanna make. So many RPGs commit this flaw, it's be easier to list the ones that don't. To be blunt, "I am good at life or death situations" shouldn't be something you have to choose in most ttgs where being in life or death situations is a thing that's gonna come up constantly.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
It's especially egregious in a class based game like DnD where there's no reason for that kind of choice to occur. It's stupid when that poo poo happens in Shadowrun, sure. It's really dumb that a game that has a basic underlying assumption of deadly combat doesn't make you at least passable at deadly combat. It's even more dumb when you have classes. The entire point of classes is that you have a delivery system for basic competencies that assure everybody can participate in the game's core assumptions equally. In Shadowrun or WoD you can put all your points into bargaining or gem assessment or finger licking and like, tough noodles, you did that, it's your fault. That should never happen in a system where the core assumption of every class is participation in the system's minigames. I think NWP worked in 2nd Ed because before they existed the assumption was you pretty much failed at anything more difficult than "I open this door" or "I insert climbing spikes into this wall." There was no need for declarative skills because everybody couldn't do anything that wasn't a part of their class. Having a get out of jail free card when your NWP came up was just that, a little boon you got out of a lovely situation. It was basically pure flavor - even if you never had to make a Swimming check or make a basket you knew that, if that came up, you'd be okay, while everybody else wouldn't be able to do anything. Skill systems are actually kind of kludge-y in DnD. For the most part everybody can attempt them and the d20 is always going to be a bigger variance than any other part of the character. They don't really differentiate you because they aren't really declarative, they're a very short list of things you can kind of do better than somebody else. And most people are just going to take whatever skills are best for them anyway. Oh hey did the Wizard take knowledge skills? Of course he loving did, everything about the system encourages you to do that. I'd really like to see an non-combat skill system that just said, "Wham, I know history. If history comes up, I know about it." Attaching DCs to knowing-things rolls is actually kind of dumb if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Selachian posted:(check out this pdf of all the NWPs that appeared in various 2E products)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'd really like to see an non-combat skill system that just said, "Wham, I know history. If history comes up, I know about it." Attaching DCs to knowing-things rolls is actually kind of dumb if you think about it. That basically "wise" as seen in Torchbearer. If you're Goblin-wise, then you know poo poo about goblins, no need to roll. Hell, you're automatically assumed to also speak their language. I'm pretty wises worked the same way in Mouse Guard, but I don't have that book. Burning Wheel, the system that Torchbearer and Mouse Guard is derived from, treat wises as any old skills. It works for the system, though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
I'd like a game where player characters specialize in obscure niches, but have the ability to twist everything to be about that, as part of the game's concept. Somehow, everything is about my expertise and knowledge of a particular style of cooking from a long-dead empire.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
LFK posted:It is critical that Orienteering be separate and distinct from Navigation. Lightning Lord posted:I'd like a game where player characters specialize in obscure niches, but have the ability to twist everything to be about that, as part of the game's concept.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I'd like a game where player characters specialize in obscure niches, but have the ability to twist everything to be about that, as part of the game's concept. Somehow, everything is about my expertise and knowledge of a particular style of cooking from a long-dead empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Armies
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I'm not trying to make this some kinda weird argument, and there really aren't any moving goalposts. My initial statement was simply "I'd like a game where the skill system for out-of-exploration poo poo was custom backgrounds the players make." That's it. You are right. My reply was needlessly grouchy and confrontational. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I'd like a game where player characters specialize in obscure niches, but have the ability to twist everything to be about that, as part of the game's concept. Somehow, everything is about my expertise and knowledge of a particular style of cooking from a long-dead empire. Nobilis
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:Boats travel in the water, airboats travel over the water. Boats travel on the water. Submarines travel in the water. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Boats travel partially in the water. Hovercraft travel on the water.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I'm not trying to make this some kinda weird argument, and there really aren't any moving goalposts. My initial statement was simply "I'd like a game where the skill system for out-of-exploration poo poo was custom backgrounds the players make." That's it. Why not ditch Attributes entirely and make Skills/Proficiency both more mechanically relevant and also what you pick to actually build your character?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Why not ditch Attributes entirely and make Skills/Proficiency both more mechanically relevant and also what you pick to actually build your character? "I want to jump that crevice" : "Make a dex check" "I want to jump that crevice" : "Hmm, you only have pole vaulting and high jumping, not broad jump or crevice traversal, sorry." Basically the same (mythical) killer DMs people discuss would just have even more of a chance to play literalist.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Then you end up with 150 entries rating every eventuality that might need to be covered. Attributes give nice cover-alls for things. You assume all of the skills listed would have to be hyper specific and not broadly applicable but still more defined than Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
I dislike long skill lists because the fact that a skill exists means you can't do it if you don't have it - even if it's really similar to something you do have lots in. Like, I imagine it's pretty much impossible for a marksman who uses a rifle to not be at least half-decent with a handgun, but in Shadowrun you're poo poo with handguns unless you buy the skill no matter how much Rifles you have. The two ways round this - skill umbrellas, or making your attribute contribute significantly to the skill's chance of success - dilute the entire point of having a really long skill list in the first place. If Navigation, Direction Sense, Orienteering, Mapping and Pathfinding can all be used pretty well if you have either high intelligence or quite a lot in one of those skills, what's the point of loving having them as separate skills in the first place. If there are no skill umbrellas and you can't be good at it without lots of points in the skill, you'd better either get a quadrillion skill points or your game had better goddamn be about making maps because that's a lot of character investment for being any good at such a simple concept as "not getting lost". Burning Wheel/Strike style "if you use a skill you pick it up and get better at it without spending any limited character advancement resources" is literally the only way to make a massive skill list not completely AIDS for your game. Edit: To actually talk about the topic of the thread, I think D&D 5th Ed's skill system is actually pretty good. Trained/Untrained and the increasing proficiency bonus is a nice, simple way to do a skill subsystem in a game that's not really about skills.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:If Navigation, Direction Sense, Orienteering, Mapping and Pathfinding can all be used pretty well if you have either high intelligence or quite a lot in one of those skills, what's the point of loving having them as separate skills in the first place. Its totally dependent on the game, but I have been in one where it made a lot of sense that the seafaring dude knew navigation, but that did not help him finding his way through a forest - and vice verse for the woodland guy. In some games things like that are needless overhead, in others they help highlight RP character strengths/sources/backgrounds a lot. It hasnt come up for a while, but I know theres some anti-versimilitude people who hate the idea that forests and oceans are different for some reason. Those people should just combine the skills into "The Gods Always Tell Me Where I Am" skill and not worry about the books. (I also think NWPs were better than 3e skill treadmills.)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Its totally dependent on the game, but I have been in one where it made a lot of sense that the seafaring dude knew navigation, but that did not help him finding his way through a forest - and vice verse for the woodland guy. Surely that's a point in favour of the "backgrounds as skills" argument? The guy with "20 years as a merchant sailor" won't have a clue when it comes to getting lost in the woods and the guy with "born in the woods, live in the woods, gonna die in the woods" has zero clue when it comes to navigating on a featureless ocean by the stars. In 3e, both of these people probably have high ranks in, what, Search? Survival? Unless one has Profession: Merchant Sailor or Knowledge: The Ocean and one has Profession: Woodsman or Knowledge: Forests or something which the DM is letting be used for navigation in their respective environments in which case that's literally skills as backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:Unless one has Profession: Merchant Sailor or Knowledge: The Ocean and one has Profession: Woodsman or Knowledge: Forests or something
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
So we were talking about previous Playtest Packets a little while ago. Seems someone is going through the packets on EnWorld.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Thats exactly what we did with NWPs. Profession, Knowledge, and Lore all were "fill in with The Thing" choices. Since I went through BECMI's Basic and Expert boxes and then AD&D before getting to 2e, I'd come up with my own system for doing this which worked out pretty well. Here's how it worked: Everyone could do agility/athletic kinda stuff like try to jump over crevasses or whatever by making STR and DEX checks, usually with a penalty. In addition you had your secondary skill which was like a background, so like "sailor" or "farmer" or "guardsman" or maybe something more setting-specific like "temple guardsman for the god of nature in <city>". Anything relating to your secondary skill, you get to do with an ability check, usually with a bonus. If it's a knowledge thing (eg, you were a sailor and you want to know which country's flag that is on that ship), you don't have to roll to find out if you know, you just know. If it's not a basic feat of agility and you don't have a relevant secondary skill, you're not even allowed to try. -- You could imitate this system pretty easily by replacing the skill system in Next like this: 1) Write down what you used to do. This can be one word like "miner" or "barkeep", or a paragraph describing your upbringing or old job. 2) Write down a few things (around 5) that the job made you really good at. 3) If something comes up in the game that you think you'd know (or know how to do) based on your background, or that is similar to one of the specific things you wrote down, ask your DM if you can have advantage, proficiency, or both on the roll.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
That sounds pretty similar to the 13th age system with a bit more crunch.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Why not ditch Attributes entirely and make Skills/Proficiency both more mechanically relevant and also what you pick to actually build your character? http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=13145 http://www.13thage.org/index.php/house-rules/223-statless-13th-age http://www.pelgranepress.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/13thAge_charsheet_DTAS.pdf http://www.13thage.org/index.php/house-rules/497-death-to-ability-scores-variant my campaigns used these, hate attributes Jackard fucked around with this message at 04:28 on May 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:You are right. My reply was needlessly grouchy and confrontational. Sorry. FRINGE posted:Then you end up with 150 entries rating every eventuality that might need to be covered. Attributes give nice cover-alls for things. Strength of Many posted:You assume all of the skills listed would have to be hyper specific and not broadly applicable but still more defined than Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, etc. Your only real problem is if you want to build a weightlifter who pointedly misses leg day or something. Splicer fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
I imagine that a big reason behind fully formalized skill systems, if not whole-hog 90s-style huge skill list systems, is because leaving it all up to "eh, pick an attribute and roll under it" or 13th-Age-style "whatever you can BS your way into" leaves you open to being hosed over by the DM being an incredible dick. Like, you shouldn't really need a Jump skill, and by the gods you shouldn't really need to declare a specific Jump DC for a specific distance, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Your only real problem is if you want to build a weightlifter who pointedly misses leg day or something. You could fix that by adding a blank line after each skill for players to customize, like Athletics - Misses Leg Day (regular athletics roll in most cases, +2 for rolls with arm lifting) Thievery - Second Story Man (general thievery check but +2 for rolls to break in windows or through ceilings) Knowledge: Children - But not the British Children and so on. Yes, I've been reading FATE.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I imagine that a big reason behind fully formalized skill systems, if not whole-hog 90s-style huge skill list systems, is because leaving it all up to "eh, pick an attribute and roll under it" or 13th-Age-style "whatever you can BS your way into" leaves you open to being hosed over by the DM being an incredible dick. Of course, that can just lead to the other extreme, where because no one picked the Lapidary skill, everyone in the party instantly dies from a cursed gemstone, which they'd obviously be able to recognize if any of them were trained jewelers 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:leaves you open to being hosed over by the DM being an incredible dick. Theres no actual protection against this though. Trying to code: "a crazy person will be pleasant, fair, and communicative" into the rules will just lead to weird rules.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Theres no actual protection against this though. Trying to code: "a crazy person will be pleasant, fair, and communicative" into the rules will just lead to weird rules. Or, you know, a system with open, clear, and visibly functioning mechanics, like the AEDU system. With utility powers, characters who aren't Wizards can state, within the given framework of the system "I shift ten squares, and ignore the chasm." I'll readily admit, 4e's mechanics could be improved, by moving to an even more abstracted system, like moving just to ability score checks, and allowing players to choose between one of three scores for any attempt. I still advocate Death To Ability Scores, but it seems we have to have them for the system to be D&D, so let's make them as broadly and abstractly functional as possible. The more agency expressly and explicitly granted to the players to control the flow of the narrative, the better; and the more that agency is spread out across every role and character the better.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:Or, you know, a system with open, clear, and visibly functioning mechanics, like the AEDU system. With utility powers, characters who aren't Wizards can state, within the given framework of the system "I shift ten squares, and ignore the chasm." I'll readily admit, 4e's mechanics could be improved, by moving to an even more abstracted system, like moving just to ability score checks, and allowing players to choose between one of three scores for any attempt. No, FRINGE is right. No matter what you do, no matter the system, some jerk GM or player is going to twist rules to their favor in a way that generates unfun for everyone else. It's no excuse for poor design, but it's no reason to design for worst case scenarios either.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Writing clear rules is hardly "worst case scenario" though.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:19
|
|
