Quote from: Horace on September 25, 2024, 10:40:47 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2024, 12:57:14 AMBackgrounds are necessary because the game is built so that half your skills and most of your tool proficiencies come from your background.

Ah, but if you remove skills and tools proficiencies...

I see the winkie so I know it's partly in jest, but complexity really is relative.

I abandoned AD&D 1e for Palladium (Robotech, then Heroes Unlimited, then Fantasy, then Rifts) in my early teens so skills feels like a minimum level of complexity for me to even consider something an RPG and not a wargame you play while doing improv theatre to earn in-game advantages from the Referee.

Similarly, I got into Champions, WEG Star Wars, Mage, and indie games like Darkus Thel by my late teens to early 20's. My late 20's was mostly a continuation of that with some d20 adjacents like Spycraft/Stargate in the mix. My 30s was dominated by 4E (the first version of D&D I loved without reservation for allowing me to run characters like I read about without house rules) and LUGTrek. Starting in my 40s I began creating bespoke systems to run and tried playing systems like SWADE and Exalted.

That 5e Champion Fighter is the absolute low end of my complexity scale (honestly, too low for me to consider playing... I'd do Battlemaster Fighter, a Monk, or a College of Swords Bard). Less than that and there aren't even enough elements to be able to guess at what a PC should be capable of in many catego (a high intelligence doesn't tell you whether you know how to build things, know ancient history, understand magic theory, know how to conduct an investigation, or how to perform surgery; and expecting someone to be good at all those things that just because they have a high intelligence just feels silly to me.

That's why skills are important to me... they categorize what a character reasonably knows how to do (while attributes tell you which areas they have a natural aptitude for). One of my biggest complaints about 5e is the proficiency bonus starts too small to be very notable outside the noise of the d20 check (I forget where I read it, but I guess people who have studied it say that for the number of d20 checks made in a typical session you need at least a +3 modifier for most people to notice a bonus or penalty outside the noise of the d20 itself).

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2024, 11:34:14 AM

Quote from: Horace on September 25, 2024, 10:40:47 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2024, 12:57:14 AMBackgrounds are necessary because the game is built so that half your skills and most of your tool proficiencies come from your background.

Ah, but if you remove skills and tools proficiencies...

I see the winkie so I know it's partly in jest, but complexity really is relative.

I abandoned AD&D 1e for Palladium (Robotech, then Heroes Unlimited, then Fantasy, then Rifts) in my early teens so skills feels like a minimum level of complexity for me to even consider something an RPG and not a wargame you play while doing improv theatre to earn in-game advantages from the Referee.

I hear you. The system I have in mind wouldn't be for everyone. It wouldn't even be for me, depending on the mood I'm in. But I've gotten pretty rules-averse lately, to the extent that my preferred system could be written on a single notecard: "You are a Human Fighter/Rogue/Wizard (choose one) in search of adventure. Go." Beyond that, I don't think anything more is necessary. Just roll d20s when outcomes are uncertain and apply bonuses where appropriate. I've played enough D&D to draw from multiple editions when more complex systems are needed. But I'd rather add those sub-systems spontaneously, during the course of gameplay, rather than write them all out ahead of time.

Again, this wouldn't be for everyone. But it's what appeals to me right now as a player/DM.

Removed ... wrong thread

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2024, 11:34:14 AM

Quote from: Horace on September 25, 2024, 10:40:47 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2024, 12:57:14 AMBackgrounds are necessary because the game is built so that half your skills and most of your tool proficiencies come from your background.

Ah, but if you remove skills and tools proficiencies...

I see the winkie so I know it's partly in jest, but complexity really is relative.

I abandoned AD&D 1e for Palladium (Robotech, then Heroes Unlimited, then Fantasy, then Rifts) in my early teens so skills feels like a minimum level of complexity for me to even consider something an RPG and not a wargame you play while doing improv theatre to earn in-game advantages from the Referee.

Similarly, I got into Champions, WEG Star Wars, Mage, and indie games like Darkus Thel by my late teens to early 20's. My late 20's was mostly a continuation of that with some d20 adjacents like Spycraft/Stargate in the mix. My 30s was dominated by 4E (the first version of D&D I loved without reservation for allowing me to run characters like I read about without house rules) and LUGTrek. Starting in my 40s I began creating bespoke systems to run and tried playing systems like SWADE and Exalted.

That 5e Champion Fighter is the absolute low end of my complexity scale (honestly, too low for me to consider playing... I'd do Battlemaster Fighter, a Monk, or a College of Swords Bard). Less than that and there aren't even enough elements to be able to guess at what a PC should be capable of in many catego (a high intelligence doesn't tell you whether you know how to build things, know ancient history, understand magic theory, know how to conduct an investigation, or how to perform surgery; and expecting someone to be good at all those things that just because they have a high intelligence just feels silly to me.

That's why skills are important to me... they categorize what a character reasonably knows how to do (while attributes tell you which areas they have a natural aptitude for). One of my biggest complaints about 5e is the proficiency bonus starts too small to be very notable outside the noise of the d20 check (I forget where I read it, but I guess people who have studied it say that for the number of d20 checks made in a typical session you need at least a +3 modifier for most people to notice a bonus or penalty outside the noise of the d20 itself).

I don't mind skills in a game, but I don't like using them if the game features a class system. The two are like oil and water. A class, as originally conceived, wasn't just a collection of skills. It represented who your character was. If you don't have that class to define a character then skills are kind of a must have. Most of what skills do in a class based system is codify mundane shit that every character should have basic competency in, and minimize player input and role play by making success only possible with a high enough die roll.