AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Didn't see a thread on Mike's latest yet, so....
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Minimalist D&D)
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Minimalist D&D)
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Minimalist D&D
- Thread starter AbdulAlhazred
- Start date
DracoSuave
First Post
Basing task resolution on ability scores like that is actually a very common way of doing things in roleplaying. Most systems out there take their equivalent of ability score, add in a modifier for skill proficiency, and resolve based on that.
It's the most common method of task resolution... D&D is uniquely unusual in that task resolution is less weighted by ability scores than other systems, and more on level and factors non-unique to the character itself.
It's the most common method of task resolution... D&D is uniquely unusual in that task resolution is less weighted by ability scores than other systems, and more on level and factors non-unique to the character itself.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Is it though? I mean what 'other factors' is it really based on? d20+ability score+1/2 level+boni. Seems to me ability score is fairly important. Considering other skill based systems I've had a lot of experience with... I don't recall exactly how RM worked, but it was mostly ability score plus bought levels IIRC. Traveller is the same essentially. BRP (CoC, RQ, etc) your ability scores don't actually matter directly at all, though EDU and INT do determine your starting skill point pool, STR has some impact on melee damage, but none of your scores affects 'RP' type skills one bit.
So I'd have to put 4e pretty much in the middle of the pack. Training and misc bonuses (race/class/background/etc) are to some extent more important than ability score, but you're still not going to really excel at something you don't have a good ability score bonus in.
My feeling is that where D&D is 'odd' is in being a split system. It isn't the only one, but combat has always been distinct from other types of checks. 4e is actually pretty close to closing that as "STR vs AC" is pretty much like a skill check, and there are a few skill check situations where you roll vs a defense at that.
It could be made simpler by just explicitly using the skill system for combat. Make Weapon Proficiency into Weapon Skill (sword) or whatever and you COULD pull all the math together. It would probably mean just using ability scores as 'defenses', too, but at that point combat just turns into opposed checks.
Honestly, I can't see the point of getting rid of the skill system. It is a main differentiator for characters and really provides a LOT of RP benefits.
So I'd have to put 4e pretty much in the middle of the pack. Training and misc bonuses (race/class/background/etc) are to some extent more important than ability score, but you're still not going to really excel at something you don't have a good ability score bonus in.
My feeling is that where D&D is 'odd' is in being a split system. It isn't the only one, but combat has always been distinct from other types of checks. 4e is actually pretty close to closing that as "STR vs AC" is pretty much like a skill check, and there are a few skill check situations where you roll vs a defense at that.
It could be made simpler by just explicitly using the skill system for combat. Make Weapon Proficiency into Weapon Skill (sword) or whatever and you COULD pull all the math together. It would probably mean just using ability scores as 'defenses', too, but at that point combat just turns into opposed checks.
Honestly, I can't see the point of getting rid of the skill system. It is a main differentiator for characters and really provides a LOT of RP benefits.
Argyle King
Legend
One of his recent articles talked about a solid core with modular add ones.
This one alludes to some different ways to use ability scores and skills.
...sometimes I almost feel as though Mearls is talking about (or maybe playing) one of the other rpgs I play.
This one alludes to some different ways to use ability scores and skills.
...sometimes I almost feel as though Mearls is talking about (or maybe playing) one of the other rpgs I play.
My impression of the what Mearls was saying was that for most skills a PC has, the numbers are the ability score modifiers (and it's only a smaller number of specific skills that get bonuses due to being trained or from race/background). If 10 of 17 skills are exactly the same numbers as the ability score mods... all you're doing is just changing the name by having a so-called 'skill list'. And the question then becomes what is better / more useful... having a full list of demarcated skills, or just having ability checks with occasional bonuses granted
for specific things.
for specific things.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I'd imagine that as a professional game designer you'd pretty much HAVE to be rather familiar with other RPGs. I mean if you were the head of R&D for an RPG product with the market presence of D&D that would be a basic job qualification. There are probably only 10,000 people who would take Mike's position at the drop of a hat. Of course he's going to be one of the most knowledgeable people in the industry. One might sometimes question WotC's ability to put out a good game, but they certainly aren't idiots over there.
My feeling is Mike is wrestling with the perennial problem of a set mentality that will develop in any long-standing team of people doing a product over time. They get set in their ways, comfortable with the space their operating in, and ideas tend to get fixed within a limited box. I think there's a lot of "what is this box we're in and what ideas do we need to look at in order to break out of it" going on here.
My feeling is Mike is wrestling with the perennial problem of a set mentality that will develop in any long-standing team of people doing a product over time. They get set in their ways, comfortable with the space their operating in, and ideas tend to get fixed within a limited box. I think there's a lot of "what is this box we're in and what ideas do we need to look at in order to break out of it" going on here.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, pretty much. Skills really ARE ability checks, and a hook to allow specific uses to get specific bonuses. Personally I think the 4e skill system is one of its stronger points.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
The thread I started in general is now up to 7 pages:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/308263-mearls-abilities-core.html
Setting aside all the arguing on the proper use of ability scores, the other discussion is: where is Mearls going with this? Iddle mussings, or is this some kind of soft preview, and if so, of what?
There are certainly themes running through out these columns, and as Johny 3D3D notes, he seems to be pointing to some kind of super modular universal D&D.
But what does that mean?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/308263-mearls-abilities-core.html
Setting aside all the arguing on the proper use of ability scores, the other discussion is: where is Mearls going with this? Iddle mussings, or is this some kind of soft preview, and if so, of what?
There are certainly themes running through out these columns, and as Johny 3D3D notes, he seems to be pointing to some kind of super modular universal D&D.
But what does that mean?
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Perhaps. I don't get the impression he really has any solid concepts going yet, just some very high level noodling.
As to what the POINT of it is? I dunno. Maybe there's no specific point. Mike Mearls is shooting the
with us. He's a pro game designer, it can be seen as nothing more than his own professional development. He's in a position where he CAN run a series like this, which I'd expect is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a game dev. It could certainly apply to some future project and that might be some future version of D&D.
I have to laugh though when I hear people talking about 5e. SURE they're working on that... That's why they just axed 3 people and heck they must be real close to releasing it if they're deciding whether or not D&D should have skills and how classes should work, lol. No doubt devs always think about what the next version might look like. That doesn't mean it isn't years away. From what I recall the 2e guys were talking about what came after 1e AD&D in like 1983...
As to what the POINT of it is? I dunno. Maybe there's no specific point. Mike Mearls is shooting the
with us. He's a pro game designer, it can be seen as nothing more than his own professional development. He's in a position where he CAN run a series like this, which I'd expect is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a game dev. It could certainly apply to some future project and that might be some future version of D&D. I have to laugh though when I hear people talking about 5e. SURE they're working on that... That's why they just axed 3 people and heck they must be real close to releasing it if they're deciding whether or not D&D should have skills and how classes should work, lol. No doubt devs always think about what the next version might look like. That doesn't mean it isn't years away. From what I recall the 2e guys were talking about what came after 1e AD&D in like 1983...
Similar Threads
