The Gaming Den

Alansmithee wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: Doing away with Skill Ranks in favor of Skill Tags was a good idea.

Just wondering, why do you think this is? I've found the skill system to be kinda disappointing. I know before it ended up largely with a binary system (either you always do something, or you never do something), but now there doesn't seem much difference in anyone. It's actually quite common that I see people who trained a skill get beat (and easily!) on checks vs. someone using a skill untrained (either when both PCs rolling against a set DC or contested rolls).

Idea vs implementation.

The overall skill SYSTEM is outright ass - you can have a 20 point divergence by level 2 - making the RNG useless; divergence tends to increase with level; the skills are broad and not clearly differentiated; skill usage during combat costs too much in the action economy for a yield of next to no benefit; the bonus provided by training is less than the bonus provided by having a skill attached to your primary stat; and there are more than one but less than two skills which cannot be attempted untrained regardless of bonus.

That said, the IDEA of making skills into trained/untrained where everyone gets a level bonus, but the divergence between trained and untrained characters is static was an improvement over 3e's overly granular rank system where you generally had to max a skill to stay competitive and people who tried to diversify where punished by falling off the RNG.

You could also increase power damage by tier or something for both the PCs and the critters. It'd certainly make the higher level powers more attractive than the lower level ones, which they're currently not.

Fundamentally the powers are all "damage + fiddly bonus/penalty/movement", which slows the game down, because all of that little shit has to be tracked. If they'd just said, "nothing stacks," and had individual effects be actually potent, then we wouldn't have the accounting issue. But it seems that their idea of "team work" is everyone adding shit tons of +2/-2 crap to everything and everyone in sight.

Gah.

The skill system for 4E needs a lot more work done on it than just normalizing the bonuses even though that is a big problem.

The biggest problem with the skill system is that the DCs are too ephemeral. Even ignoring that huge pile of clown smegma that is Page 42 of the DMG, I have too little of an idea of what people can do with skills, mostly because the applications are too broad and simplified. Like the Bluff skill in the PHB, it's used for conning a merchant, gambling, forgery, and lying. The PHB implies that they're all relatively equal in difficulty to accomplish. Which is absurd. The broadness of skills also causes people to trip over each other. Do you use Arcana or Insight to detect the presence of hidden magic? Do you use Bluff or Diplomacy to seduce someone? Why use Thievery to steal an unattended item when you could use Stealth? If you want information on the War of the Churches, do you use Religion or History? If my Athletics check is too low to make a jump over a pit trap in a dungeon, can I use Acrobatics to Wall-Run over the pit instead? Or would that be Athletics still?

Fuck, man.

Maybe this was intentional and 4E intended for people to play Mother-May-I with the DM. The diplomacy skill and Page 42 seem to heavily hint at this. But if you don't want to do this then the skill system needs a complete rewrite.

Josh_Kablack wrote: That said, the IDEA of making skills into trained/untrained where everyone gets a level bonus, but the divergence between trained and untrained characters is static was an improvement over 3e's overly granular rank system where you generally had to max a skill to stay competitive and people who tried to diversify where punished by falling off the RNG.

I don't think it's an improvement, in general. It's just a different failure.

The problem is that there are some tasks where I want everyone to be able to contribute (e.g. both Ziv the Wizard and Og the Barbarian should be able to ask the duke for help [Diplomacy] or spot a lurker above [Perception]), but there are other tasks where I totally don't care if everyone can contribute (e.g. it shouldn't be required for Og the Barbarian to study magical runes [Arcana] or for Ziv the Wizard to be an expert on taming dire bears [Nature] -- although if Og and Ziv want to study those things, that's fine). But D&D lumps all of those tasks under "Skills" for whatever reason, so you end up with a system that handles one of those cases poorly.

hogarth wrote: I don't think it's an improvement, in general. It's just a different failure.

The problem is that there are some tasks where I want everyone to be able to contribute (e.g. both Ziv the Wizard and Og the Barbarian should be able to ask the duke for help [Diplomacy] or spot a lurker above [Perception]), but there are other tasks where I totally don't care if everyone can contribute (e.g. it shouldn't be required for Og the Barbarian to study magical runes [Arcana] or for Ziv the Wizard to be an expert on taming dire bears [Nature] -- although if Og and Ziv want to study those things, that's fine).

What you describe in your example is a binary trained/untrained system.

You achieve the results in that example by building a system where Diplomacy and Perception can be performed untrained (at least for some uses), but Nature and Arcana are trained-only (or at least have some trained-only uses), Barbarians get free training in Nature and Wizards get free training in Arcana, and anyone can spend feats/levels/xp/gold on training in skills they don't get for free.

Josh_Kablack wrote:

hogarth wrote: I don't think it's an improvement, in general. It's just a different failure.

The problem is that there are some tasks where I want everyone to be able to contribute (e.g. both Ziv the Wizard and Og the Barbarian should be able to ask the duke for help [Diplomacy] or spot a lurker above [Perception]), but there are other tasks where I totally don't care if everyone can contribute (e.g. it shouldn't be required for Og the Barbarian to study magical runes [Arcana] or for Ziv the Wizard to be an expert on taming dire bears [Nature] -- although if Og and Ziv want to study those things, that's fine).

What you describe in your example is a binary trained/untrained system.

What I describe could be implemented in a binary trained/untrained system like 4E (by recognising that some skills are treated differently), or it could be implemented in the 3.X ranks-per-level skill system (by recognising that some skills are treated differently), or it could be implemented in some other way altogether.

For instance, in Chaosium games, skills are rated from 0% to 100% (or more, depending on the game). But skills that anyone would be expected to use (like Persuade or Spot Hidden) start at a higher level than more specialised skills (like Occult or Ride Horse).

hogarth wrote:What I describe could be implemented in a binary trained/untrained system like 4E (by recognising that some skills are treated differently), or it could be implemented in the 3.X ranks-per-level skill system (by recognising that some skills are treated differently), or it could be implemented in some other way altogether.

For instance, in Chaosium games, skills are rated from 0% to 100% (or more, depending on the game). But skills that anyone would be expected to use (like Persuade or Spot Hidden) start at a higher level than more specialised skills (like Occult or Ride Horse).

But you said you wanted the Wizard to inherently not have the ability to train bears and the barbarian to not have the inherent ability to read runes. And then if they spent character resources on it, they could do the other thing (presumably at a level appropriate level), while both of them could talk to the King or spot a ninja whether they put points in it or not.

Under Chaosium percentiles (or skill ranks), the Wizard has a low percentage chance of training bears before he pumps more points into it. And the Barbarian has a low chance of identifying the magic runes. But there's still an extremely non-zero chance that the Barbarian will red the runes and the Wizard will not. And then if the characters decide to train up in the other thing, the Wizard will spend a long time training bears at a level which is not level appropriate.

So while you could try to fulfill your design goals with some sort of incremental skill system such as ranks or percentages or whatever, you would be an idiot to attempt to do that. Because your design criteria highlighted none of the advantages of incremental skill systems and was completely and wholly served with a binary skill tag system.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: Under Chaosium percentiles (or skill ranks), the Wizard has a low percentage chance of training bears before he pumps more points into it. And the Barbarian has a low chance of identifying the magic runes. But there's still an extremely non-zero chance that the Barbarian will red the runes and the Wizard will not. And then if the characters decide to train up in the other thing, the Wizard will spend a long time training bears at a level which is not level appropriate.

I haven't the foggiest idea what this means. What the fuck is "not level appropriate" in a system without levels like Chaosium?

hogarth wrote:I haven't the foggiest idea what this means. What the fuck is "not level appropriate" in a system without levels like Chaosium?

Well, as characters advance, they are subjected to more difficult challenges. When characters are confronted with challenges that are geared towards advanced characters, having a capability that would be expected on a non-advanced character is likely insufficient to succeed. Having an ability that does not work is like not having an ability. And thus, highly advanced characters get little functional use from skill totals that are not consistent with advanced characters.

So yes, you can have a bonus that is not level appropriate even if the game lacks explicit levels. It's appropriate to the level of the challenges, whether that level is "level 8" or some descriptive word like "wicked hard core."

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: Well, as characters advance, they are subjected to more difficult challenges. When characters are confronted with challenges that are geared towards advanced characters, having a capability that would be expected on a non-advanced character is likely insufficient to succeed. Having an ability that does not work is like not having an ability. And thus, highly advanced characters get little functional use from skill totals that are not consistent with advanced characters.

I don't really know if that applies to the Chaosim system though. Now all I've played is their CoC game, but I'm pretty sure that the other games use the same basic system and how that one works, it's basically possible to start out as an expert at a given thing. Like you'd routinely have investigators with 80-90 spot hidden, or medicine or whatever it was they were supposed to be good at. The actual advancement in the game seemed relatively trivial to the point that like it probably didn't matter if you were a veteran of 10-20 investigations or a newbie fresh off the boat, your ability to handle challenges didn't really seem to go up much, because like most team RPGs, it was a game of specialists and your specialists didn't really improve that much.

Isn't that what Frank just said?

NineInchNall wrote:Isn't that what Frank just said?

If I understand it right, Frank was saying that every game has "level appropriate challenges".

I don't think that's true in a game where you can start with your main skills effectively maxed.

Maybe I totally misread him though, I don't know.

No, sounds right. In CoC you were expected to either be doing a one-shot or running through your investigators every few outbreaks, so it was a feature that you were actually at the high end of competent when you started.

Level-appropriate in CoC means that you haven't been driven crazy yet - you actually degrade the more you play.

So starting with a non-peak ability is probably not level-appropriate.

-Crissa

FrankTrollman wrote: So yes, you can have a bonus that is not level appropriate even if the game lacks explicit levels. It's appropriate to the level of the challenges, whether that level is "level 8" or some descriptive word like "wicked hard core."

I don't know what to tell you. In my experience, "level-appropriate/inappropriate" is different from "easy/hard" (e.g. a task can be level-appropriate-and-easy or level-appropriate-but-hard).

FrankTrollman wrote:Well, as characters advance, they are subjected to more difficult challenges.

It certainly doesn't have to hold in the case of skill tasks. For instance, it wouldn't make much sense to assume that NPCs get more and more uncooperative as your PC rises in level, just so that they provide a good challenge to your PC's Diplomacy skill.

I think a Chaosium-style mostly static skill system could work fine in D&D. You could certainly cap initial skill levels if you wanted to have the feeling that your PCs are starting out wet behind the ears (e.g. no starting skill over 70%, or whatever).

hogarth wrote:It certainly doesn't have to hold in the case of skill tasks. For instance, it wouldn't make much sense to assume that NPCs get more and more uncooperative as your PC rises in level, just so that they provide a good challenge to your PC's Diplomacy skill.

So, the evil overlord isn't more able to resist diplomacy than joe tough? Trying to persuade a whole kingdom isn't tougher than persuading a whole bar?

I don't see what you're saying.

-Crissa

I think he's complaining about how DnD4e's recommended DCs increase arbitrarily with level, rather than by an objective measure of what you're trying to accomplish.

I think a Chaosium-style mostly static skill system could work fine in D&D. You could certainly cap initial skill levels if you wanted to have the feeling that your PCs are starting out wet behind the ears (e.g. no starting skill over 70%, or whatever).

Now you've completely lost me.

Maybe it's just because the only difference I see between a "roll under X%" system and a "roll single die plus bonus against a target number" is that the target number system allows bonuses and penalties at the risk of having characters diverge by more than the RNG.

You know, one thing that really bugged me about 4E was them not including half-orcs (or orcs) because 'that implies an ugly backstory'.

I mean, honestly. What the fuck, Andy? The 3E PHB does not mention rape at all; on the contrary, half-orcs are mentioned as being explicitly products of cultural exchange on the borders.

There are many threads on this board about what is wrong with 4th ed, and some of them are rather long, so I hope it is understandable that I don't want to comb through all of this material.
Is there a short list of what people do to deal with those design mistakes to be found anywhere? (Except playing third edition, obviously).

50%(75%) HP and 200%(133%) Damage for monsters was already mentioned. What else is there?
For example, one main complaint seems to be that 4th ed is just boring. But the game still has all the status conditions a 3rd ed wizard could cause (blinded, deafened, etc.). Anybody tried to emphasize on this, by giving them higher durations or something? (And I don't mean singular builds like the orbizard that are able to achieve that, more as a houserule.)

Gah. I just read this one, an example of the flavor/mechanics disconnect 4e has going on:

Leap to the Fray (16th level): Whenever an ally within 5 squares of you charges, you and each other ally within 5 squares of you can shift 1 square as a free action.

Yes, 4e, moving one square is totally leaping into whatever melee is going down. I totally see that.

It's also an example of the "movement is sooooo exciting" paradigm.

There are many threads on this board about what is wrong with 4th ed,....and some of them are rather long, so I hope it is understandable that I don't want to comb through all of this material. Is there a short list of what people do to deal with those design mistakes to be found anywhere?

• Beer

Aharon wrote:For example, one main complaint seems to be that 4th ed is just boring. But the game still has all the status conditions a 3rd ed wizard could cause (blinded, deafened, etc.). Anybody tried to emphasize on this, by giving them higher durations or something? (And I don't mean singular builds like the orbizard that are able to achieve that, more as a houserule.)

While the save system certainly doesn't help, and fixing it would make your ability to blind people more fun, A) That just leads to all enemies being stunned all the time. b) 4e can't actually mimic all the status effects, like for example, entangled, or trapped in a wall of stone. c) It's not just status effects, things like, divination, see invis/true seeing/invis purge vs invis, transmute X to Y, stone shape, various terrain alterations that do more than just make terrain a status effect, are all also on the list of bullshit you can never do.

To say nothing of Dominate, not that it's actually good for the game or anything, but fuck, that succubus entry still makes me want to murder.

Aharon wrote:There are many threads on this board about what is wrong with 4th ed, and some of them are rather long, so I hope it is understandable that I don't want to comb through all of this material.
Is there a short list of what people do to deal with those design mistakes to be found anywhere? (Except playing third edition, obviously).

50%(75%) HP and 200%(133%) Damage for monsters was already mentioned. What else is there?
For example, one main complaint seems to be that 4th ed is just boring. But the game still has all the status conditions a 3rd ed wizard could cause (blinded, deafened, etc.). Anybody tried to emphasize on this, by giving them higher durations or something? (And I don't mean singular builds like the orbizard that are able to achieve that, more as a houserule.)

Doing that makes the combat less grindy. It doesn't address the tracking of various trivial bullshit effects, it doesn't address the game pretends that these effects matter and are interesting, and it doesn't address that the whole game is Sandpaper Tango.

4e has the same status effects as 3.x in name only; e.g., look at the Dominated status effect. Also, layering status effects is, well, not that exciting when it is a purely mechanical effect divorced from any flavor concerns. Powers randomly blind or daze or immobilize, and there seems to be no fucking reason for it.

Player: "I punch the goblin raider! He takes 9 damage and ... he's blinded and moved 1 square and takes a -1 to Will defense against primal illusion powers until the end of my next turn!"

DM: "You don't honestly expect me to keep track of that, do you?"



Also: Sandpaper Tango? Derp?