![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerin...on the D&D website to do a sort of series on theories of complexity in game design that's only really been marginally interesting to me, but the newest installment on skill systems caught my eye.
Mearls favors having broadly applicable basic rules and skills as ways of customizing character, making them stand out from each other. He gives an example of a skill system where being "trained" in a task like climbing gives a flat bonus and then each time you gain a further point you can choose from various talents represent advanced or specific training (Cautious Climber, Team Climber, Fast Climber, etc.)
This is sort of like a more systematic approach to what is basically the reality on the ground in D&D 4E: you do get a flat bonus for having training in a skill, and then you can gain more specific capabilities through Feats and Utility Powers. Those Feat and Power selections take up "character design resources" that could be used for other things, like combat abilities or more colorful customizations, which means that some players will habitually overlook or scorn them and others will look longingly at them while pragmatically making the character design choices they feel they "need to" make. By giving a separate space in the system for things that modify skills, that is avoided... though it adds another step/layer of complexity to character creation.
Among the reasons that this column speaks to me more than earlier ones in the same series did is that Mearls's thoughts on broad rules and customized capabilities speaks to what I'm going for in A Wilder World.
I take it as axiomatic that:
1) any adventurer ought to have a chance to get through a locked door
2) some adventurers will be able to do so better/faster/more reliably
3) getting through a locked door (or past a comparable obstacle) should rarely require opening up a rulebook.
I also take it as given that things that diversify character abilities are more interesting than linear number progressions. That is, abilities that start with "You can..." are preferable to "You gain +1".
Here’s what I propose as a starting point: A skill gives you something new to do or it makes you better at something you already can do. In other words, if you removed the skill chapter from the rulebook, the game would still be playable. You’d be missing options, but the basic functions of the game remain intact. We don’t hide things like the rules for climbing or jumping in the skills chapter. We just have rules for how to climb, and then perhaps a skill that makes you better at climbing.
For a lot of other stuff, we can shelve the basic rules for how to do things under the ability scores. For example, Charisma describes guidelines for using that ability to lie, gather information, negotiate a treaty, and so forth. It takes a general approach that sets the scope for the ability.
I think a skill system in D&D can either serve as a set of rules for how to do stuff, or it can serve as a way to customize your character. You can do both in the system, but I think that needlessly hides stuff away from the players. It’s clearer to just create a flexible, core mechanic, set out the basics of how to do common actions that you expect anyone to be able to do, give the DM a robust mechanic to improvise or make a ruling, and then focus skills on customization.
Mearls favors having broadly applicable basic rules and skills as ways of customizing character, making them stand out from each other. He gives an example of a skill system where being "trained" in a task like climbing gives a flat bonus and then each time you gain a further point you can choose from various talents represent advanced or specific training (Cautious Climber, Team Climber, Fast Climber, etc.)
This is sort of like a more systematic approach to what is basically the reality on the ground in D&D 4E: you do get a flat bonus for having training in a skill, and then you can gain more specific capabilities through Feats and Utility Powers. Those Feat and Power selections take up "character design resources" that could be used for other things, like combat abilities or more colorful customizations, which means that some players will habitually overlook or scorn them and others will look longingly at them while pragmatically making the character design choices they feel they "need to" make. By giving a separate space in the system for things that modify skills, that is avoided... though it adds another step/layer of complexity to character creation.
Among the reasons that this column speaks to me more than earlier ones in the same series did is that Mearls's thoughts on broad rules and customized capabilities speaks to what I'm going for in A Wilder World.
I take it as axiomatic that:
1) any adventurer ought to have a chance to get through a locked door
2) some adventurers will be able to do so better/faster/more reliably
3) getting through a locked door (or past a comparable obstacle) should rarely require opening up a rulebook.
I also take it as given that things that diversify character abilities are more interesting than linear number progressions. That is, abilities that start with "You can..." are preferable to "You gain +1".