|
Post by redpriest on Mar 31, 2008 15:26:13 GMT -6
"Aha!" I hear you say, "but the player will know the difficulty of the task by the number of the dice they are supposed to roll, and will try to find some way to avoid failure!" I think it's perfectly fine for players to understand the risk of what they plan to visit upon their characters, and taking steps to lower that risk is excellent play. Sometimes, even well-detailed verbal, textual and graphic descriptions and images fall short of conveying what a situation is "really" like without "actually being there". Referee: "Liptoz comes across across a 20' chasm. His lantern's focused beam fails to reveal the chasm's bottom. On the near side, a rope dangles from the ceiling to the floor. Giving the rope a couple of very strong tugs, Liptoz figures that the rope is strong and firmly anchored. It also appears that the rope may be just long enough to reach to the other side, but with very little, if any, length to spare."Player: "Liptoz will swing Tarzan-like over the 20' wide, seemingly bottomless chasm."Referee: (checks Liptoz's character sheet) "Okay, roll 4d6, and score under Liptoz's strength stat."Player: (also checks character sheet) "15 strength is really good, but ... Well, okay, Liptoz tries to hide the sack containing 300 gold pieces and his two-handed sword in a niche somewhere nearby, but makes sure his dagger is firmly fitted inside his belt."Referee: "Alright, now roll 3d6 and score under his strength."Player: "Better, but an unlucky roll would not be a good thing. Liptoz firmly double-spikes one end of his own 50' rope to just about 10' away from the chasm, and then ties the other end around his waist. Here goes nothing. Lippie grabs the dangling rope now and swings across. (Player rolls 3d6 and gets a ....) I could see where this could lead to Who Wants To Be A Millionaire's "Is that your final answer?", but until the dice are rolled, a player should be given every reasonable opportunity to succeed. The player has been allowed to assess the risk and given a fair chance to increase success. Liptoz's player could easily have taken the 4d6 roll and allowed the chips fall where they may, but by noting that STR was the determinant factor in this obstacle, the player realized there was room to improve the character's chance to succeed. Far from keeping players in the dark about how risky or dangerous something may be, it can be a good thing to give them the opportunity to be creative, and even a chance to surprise the referee. The ref can also derive satisfaction when seeing the look of angst and consternation from the player whose just realized what's in store for his character. The look of failure, however, when the degree of risk was unknown (and far worse than expected) could just be one of disappointment.
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Mar 31, 2008 15:33:01 GMT -6
Just for the sake of argument (I don't really have any preference about how some other Ref handles skills)... why should skills get better with level? Should a Fighting Man really become a better gardener as he increases in level?
A Fighting Man becomes better at fighting as he goes up in level. A Magic-User becomes better at wizardry. A Cleric becomes a more potent channel of powers.
If there were a Tradesman class, then I would expect that he would become better at plying his trade as he increased in level, whereas he would never increase in his ability to fight or do magic.
|
|
|
Post by joethulhu on Mar 31, 2008 15:39:52 GMT -6
Just for the sake of argument (I don't really have any preference about how some other Ref handles skills)... why should skills get better with level? Should a Fighting Man really become a better gardener as he increases in level? Because class and level are the primary (and most often the only) determinants of the chance of success of the vast majority of actions covered in the LBBs? ;D
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Mar 31, 2008 15:40:02 GMT -6
Just for the sake of argument (I don't really have any preference about how some other Ref handles skills)... why should skills get better with level? Should a Fighting Man really become a better gardener as he increases in level? Depends on what you mean by "skills." Generally speaking, there are two types of skills people talk about in RPGs. There are those that directly relate to a character's effectiveness in combat, exploration, investigation, etc. -- basically, "adventuring skills." And then there are "background skills" that come up mostly as color or to flesh out a character's personality/story. The latter are rarely the subject of life-or-death actions whose outcomes are uncertain. When was the last time that a character's skills as a gardener made a whit of difference in an adventure? IMO, such background skills need no resolution mechanic. Adventuring skills, though, sometime do need a simple mechanic to resolve and such skills, in D&D anyway, make sense being tied to classes and levels. After all, OD&D characters' combat effectiveness, ability to work magic, and avoid danger are all tied to such things already, so it makes perfect sense to extend these mechanics to skills pertinent to adventuring.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Mar 31, 2008 15:44:19 GMT -6
"Aha!" I hear you say, "but the player will know the difficulty of the task by the number of the dice they are supposed to roll, and will try to find some way to avoid failure!" I think it's perfectly fine for players to understand the risk of what they plan to visit upon their characters, and taking steps to lower that risk is excellent play. Sometimes, even well-detailed verbal, textual and graphic descriptions and images fall short of conveying what a situation is "really" like without "actually being there". Oh, DEFINITE agreement about everything you've said. But giving lots of descriptive clues about what's going on and working through stuff that way is not a problem, as I see it. What I was objecting to was the problem of letting the game mechanic (in this case, the number of dice) stand in for that entirely useful description and back and forth. I'm objecting to rules standing in for real description.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Mar 31, 2008 16:37:11 GMT -6
Skills are the standard d6 rolls as in the booklets. If they have to be specific, like the rogue, then let them choose what specific means in their initial background creation. (but make sure those are balanced on your end rules-wise).
Feats are easy. They're basically what you gain from adventuring in the world that could rightfully be called a superpower. Like bartering for the ability to fly from your god. The abilities themselves are loosely level based, but they are easy enough to trade money, magic items, level power, and even reputation for. Sacrifice for the quick easy gain.
For examples: One of our fighting men wanted to be better as an archer than in melee. So the Ref was going to allow him to focus for a detriment to his melee abilities. The player eventually decided against it.
Another time, the same character traded some magic items to an unknown power for the ability to see in the dark. He now has demon eyes. (or he did. He died last session and my good cleric has certain beliefs as to why)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2008 12:30:26 GMT -6
I like Feats to allow people to be slightly better at things they think their character should be good at. "This is how I'm different from every other Fighting-Man." I don't allow Feats to let you do things no one else can do, but maybe F-M Bob imposes a -6 penalty to attacks when he parries, rather than the normal -4.
I don't like Skills. As others have mentioned, a PC's primary skill is Fighting, or casting spells, or whatever. For the most part I prefer that actions others might resolve through skill checks be instead handled through role-playing and player creativity. Try whatever you want, and if it makes sense to me it works. (As aside, this is why I voted "Thieves are the first step on the road to hell.")
There are exceptions: 1. "Adventuring Skills" where the outcome is not obvious: If I can't determine success or failure using common sense, I prefer a stat check modified by race and/or level. I like adding level to reflect a general competency; 10th level Fighters are better than 1st level Fighters at lots of stuff.
2. "Background Skills": Doing certain things requires a certain amount of knowledge or skill. Most people can't just pick up hammer and tongs and forge a sword on their first try. I don't use rolls for this. Depending on character history you simply have (or don't have) certain proficiencies. If you try to do something that pushes your skill level you just take longer, or waste more raw materials (adds to cost).
|
|