What is the best system for skills in a D&Desque game

[deaddmwalking]

I think TarkisFlux is right - not being noticed should represent stealth.

As a result, a creature that has no eyes and does not 'see' may not suffer any penalty on observation - they may have other sources that make them just as aware of their surroundings.

Nobody objects to the idea of sneaking past a sleeping dragon - even though their senses are far keener than most mortal races. The fact that they may smell a halfling doesn't ALWAYS result in him startling awake - just like the sound of my alarm doesn't always wake me up. I always hear it, but sometimes I'm so tired that my brain incorporates it into my dream...

If you watch the experiment where people are asked if they noticed the man in the gorilla suit in the middle of a basketball game they've been asked to watch, you'd be forced to admit that sometimes people don't notice even what they see.

[MGuy]

If you watch the experiment where people are asked if they noticed the man in the gorilla suit in the middle of a basketball game they've been asked to watch, you'd be forced to admit that sometimes people don't notice even what they see.

Did that experiment. Saw the gorilla but mistakenly thought it was a distraction from me watching the ball. I was surprised to find out that he was what I was supposed to notice.

[Aryxbez]

Did that experiment. Saw the gorilla but mistakenly thought it was a distraction from me watching the ball. I was surprised to find out that he was what I was supposed to notice.

oooh misdirection!, reminds the idea that other skills can play a part in the Stealth Minigame to say the least, even if we're talking about the skill itself. So as obviously mentioned there, Bluff for ventriloquism and otherwise misdirection to get someone to be focusing on something else. Although, disguise, forgery (documentation to be someone you're not), seem more part of the Bluff skill itself than anything else.

I've seen more than one system attempt to fix that by having the 'leader' make a roll for the entire group; with varying limitations. Sometimes it requires all of the followers to spend a FATE point, other times it's the leader making a check modified by how much worse the group is to him.

Here, I was hoping that would be the mild solution to group Stealth challenges. I believe FantasyCraft had an ability where one of the rogue classes let his allies around him share his stealth result, so even clanky the dwarf can be rocking the good result from the rogue. Also, I guess trying to give penalty per ally instead, wouldn't work, even for a specialist? Perhaps it could be -1-2 per ally, and/or you just take the highest armor check penalty from one of the PC's, this case Clanky, and only apply that as the penalty to the group stealth check?

[Lago PARANOIA]

What I meant was that I've seen PCs play the "reasonableness" card (e.g. "No one can reasonably sneak up on us, so it automatically fails") as often as the GM, if not more so.

The point is that since the DM controls the gameworld, they can come up with ways that circumvent the 'Reasonableness' clause (ninjas with desert camouflage who are trained in mirage stealth -- so they can sneak up on you in a flat desert map in broad daylight) more easily than the PCs can try to circumvent it. And can also design the game world to defeat PC attempts to try similar shenanigans.

If you want stealth to work the same way it does across campaigns, you have to err on the side of the person using stealth. Otherwise you get PCs unable to sneak in most situations and not even getting any advantage out of their ineffectual 'walking back-to-back, shining flashlights' standing orders. So it's just a double-fuck. Even if you're okay with PCs throwing up convoluted anti-stealth generic actions, a stealth system that wanks to 'Reasonableness' is still going to hurt them more than it does the GM's characters.

[Username17]

No matter what "reasonableness" restrictions you put on stealth, it will never, ever stop team monster from sneaking up on the PCs.



So any "reasonableness" limits on stealth are always an anti-player rule. And anti-player MTP rules are generally just Gygaxian dickery.

-Username17

[hogarth]

No matter what "reasonableness" restrictions you put on stealth, it will never, ever stop team monster from sneaking up on the PCs.

So any "reasonableness" limits on stealth are always an anti-player rule.

And yet, nevertheless, I've seen appeals to reasonableness used just as often (if not more) by players as by GMs.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And yet, nevertheless, I've seen appeals to reasonableness used just as often (if not more) by players as by GMs.

Who fucking gives a shit who uses it more? That is a completely unremarkable data point. The lottery hurts the poor more than it does the rich, yet the poor play it more.

[deaddmwalking]

No matter what "reasonableness" restrictions you put on stealth, it will never, ever stop team monster from sneaking up on the PCs.

So any "reasonableness" limits on stealth are always an anti-player rule.

And yet, nevertheless, I've seen appeals to reasonableness used just as often (if not more) by players as by GMs.

The GM has no need to use 'reasonableness' as a recourse.

I remember one GM who was trying to railroad our group down a particular path. The setup required that we all be captured in our sleep. My character was on watch so he says 'you fall asleep'.

I reasonably pointed out that as an elf, my character was immune to sleep.

Without regard to the reasonableness of my opinion, he then explained that my immunity to sleep had no impact on falling unconscious as I was targeted by enough sneak attacking arrows to drop me.

Even if the GM allows the players to 'sneak up' on a guard, he can pull additional cards from his sleeve as he believes that the situation warrants. Sure, you sneak up on that guard, but when you try to incapacitate him, the guards in the next room see.

Effectively, the GM has unlimited ammunition, and it doesn't really matter what the PCs are allowed to 'get away with' - he can fix it secretly on the back end. For PCs, however, ensuring that their preparations actually impact the game is always important.

[ishy]

Well yes, but asuming that all dms are terrible is a weird starting position.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well yes, but asuming that all dms are terrible is a weird starting position.

No, but the idea that DMs will have a biased, self-serving, or ironically unreasonable idea of what 'reasonable' is well-established even before we get into specifics.

Just ask any random DM if they would let a rogue attempt to sneak past a guard down an empty, well-lit hallway facing the direction the rogue is coming from. The number of DMs who would not make this an auto-fail is almost certainly going to be less than the number of DMs would would say that a team of desert-camouflage, mirage-hiding-technique ninjas sneaking up on a desert camp in broad daylight should not contrariwise be an auto-fail. Even if the ninjas' bonuses are lower than the rogue.

[Saxony]

Well yes, but asuming that all dms are terrible is a weird starting position.

No, but the idea that DMs will have a biased, self-serving, or ironically unreasonable idea of what 'reasonable' is well-established even before we get into specifics.

Pretty much.

On a side point, I agree with game designers tweaking their game so people play the game they are "supposed to be playing".

If a DM's interpretation impedes what you feel is the "spirit of the game", you fix that. Just like when a rifle in a video game shooter dealing too much damage "takes away from the spirit of the game"; it gets edited. And I think you'd treat both problems with a similar level of professional detachment.
--

I think one of the major obstacles [for making a fantasy game] is people wanting to be mundane action heroes doing things that are impossible/unrealistic things without using magic. Because then their avatar isn't awesome; it's the magic that's awesome. Or its the item that's awesome.

Can a character be cool without being unrealistic or unprobable? Because at some point, the character is so removed from reality on their own merit that they cannot serve as a relatable power fantasy avatar because they are "too cool by way of unrealism".

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't think it's a problem. Or rather, it is a problem but it's a problem that will be solved by letting these myopic grognards get heart attacks from all of those cheetohs and meatbread.

The trend for fantasy pop culture in literature, video games, television, and movies is to make their heroes increasingly fantastical and impossible. The only people really objecting are the aforementioned grognards. People think that Kratos impaling a sea monster's head through a mast is cool as fuck. Along with Robin suplexing a stone golem. Or Sora slicing a building in two. If there's a problem, the problem is on their end. Again, not that there's anything wrong with that, but complaining that they can't feel cool unless they have access to viable VAH schticks would be like me complaining that I can't feel cool because I'm playing a World War I flying TTRPG and I don't have bullet time.

[echoVanguard]

Man, I love meatbread.

echo