The Five Worst Ideas in Role-Playing Gaming

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

*nods* Additionally, ISTR a commonly adopted rule back when we were playing classic Traveller that 'death' just meant you mustered out at that point.

Not only was that a common house rule, ISTR that it was actually published as an alternative, though I can't recall exactly where...

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Yeah. Note the single biggest one of these is attributes add to skills. I've yet to see an implementation where that didn't feed a munchkinization problem.

There are two ways around this.

One is to have attributes have only a very small additive effect on final skill value. Hero System kinda does this, but it can be taken to an even more extreme degree. The end result is that the character doesn't feel like he is at all "talented" in whatever area that the attribute represents. For instance, if I buy a high Perception attribute, I expect to see results, results that are visible within the character-observable reality of the game world. I am denied that in such systems. Also, if attributes have very little effect on skills, why have them have any affect at all? It's just an arithmetical burden, making little difference.

The other is to use more sophisticated arithmetics. Instead of confining oneself to 1st grade arithmetics, addition, one moves up a very few grades, and utilizes multiplication (including multiplication by lower-than-one values, i.e. division), so that the relation between innate talent (attribute) and acquired ability (final skill value) is not additive but multiplicative: Having an higher X attribute means you learn X-based skills faster. Takes less time, costs fewer skill points.

There's a third "solution", if one is willing to call it that (I am of course not), which is that the GM can arbitrarily base skill rolls on different attributes, if in his opinion a player has bought an attribute up to a too high value. In such systems, skill values are not calculated in advance as skill+attribute, but are rather calculated during the game, according to what the GM tells the players, e.g. "this Stealth check is PER-based, this one is WIL-based, and this one is STR-based". Not a significant arithmetical burdens of skill and attribute values are low, but far too heavy on GM opinion.


Just about the worst thing an RPG designer can do, with synergy between inborn talent and acquired ability, is to divide inborn talent into only two categories, e.g. physical inborn talent and mental inborn talent. That constitutes asking for trouble.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

There's a third "solution", if one is willing to call it that (I am of course not), which is that the GM can arbitrarily base skill rolls on different attributes, if in his opinion a player has bought an attribute up to a too high value.

You have in your usual adversarial way completely missed the point of floating skill systems. The GM floats the skill to the attribute that makes the most sense, not to the lowest one. In GURPS I might ask for a PER based Guns roll to identify the distantly observed enemy weapon. I do this not because the player has a higher DX than PER, but because DX makes no sense in this context.

[Anders]

Have people mentioned THAC0 and AC yet? I can't believe they retained that for 4th edition, considering the number of sacred cows they barbecued.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

You have in your usual adversarial way completely missed the point of floating skill systems. The GM floats the skill to the attribute that makes the most sense, not to the lowest one. In GURPS I might ask for a PER based Guns roll to identify the distantly observed enemy weapon. I do this not because the player has a higher DX than PER, but because DX makes no sense in this context.

But I want more game and less GM. This "solution" completely fails to give me that.

The real solution is to have inborn talent have a multiplicative effect on final skill, rather than an additiv effect, and to have multiple attributes affect each skill in this way. If firearm skills are based both on Dexterity and Percption, then use the average, or weighted average, of those two skills, to determine how fast the character learns firearms skills.

Mission accomplished!

[Gizensha]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

But I want more game and less GM. This "solution" completely fails to give me that.

The real solution is to have inborn talent have a multiplicative effect on final skill, rather than an additiv effect, and to have multiple attributes affect each skill in this way. If firearm skills are based both on Dexterity and Percption, then use the average, or weighted average, of those two skills, to determine how fast the character learns firearms skills.

Mission accomplished!

Except that, for identifying a weapon from a distance, DX is useless, so why should it have any effect?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Kyle Aaron

Saying "this sucks!" is not fun.

Oh, come on . . . lots of people get all of their fun from it. It's practically the basis of stand-up comedy. :)

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

But I want more game and less GM. This "solution" completely fails to give me that.

The real solution is to have inborn talent have a multiplicative effect on final skill, rather than an additiv effect, and to have multiple attributes affect each skill in this way. If firearm skills are based both on Dexterity and Percption, then use the average, or weighted average, of those two skills, to determine how fast the character learns firearms skills.

Mission accomplished!

Are you familiar with the legal codification movements of the 19th century? With special reference to the German ones, of course?

Attempts to create a clear, concise and workable system of rules without any gaps or room for human interpretation have a very bad history, even when far more time and resources are involved than a hobbyist can bring to bear.

[Gizensha]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Oh, come on . . . lots of people get all of their fun from it. It's practically the basis of stand-up comedy. :)

...And is pretty much the British national passtime (But only if done in a way that's not liable to get anything achieved...)

[tylrlsaa]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Oh, come on . . . lots of people get all of their fun from it. It's practically the basis of stand-up comedy. :)

...and a good chunk of playing MMOs.