The Gaming Den

Something that has been loitering in the back of my head for a while is the various skill systems. In my own design projects, I've been continuously looking at current paradigms and trying to copy them, but have been consistently left unsatisfied with the results.

For instance, in my last draft of Space Hooligans skill system, I went to emulate the D20 system; flat d20 roll + attribute + skill ranks versus set DCs or opposed rolls. Falling off the RNG wasn't going to be much of an issue since people could only get about six ranks and attributes worked a bit diff. Then I condensed skills together, where something like the Acrobatics skill covered Balancing and Tumbling, and then a couple of skill points could be set on fire to get a bigger bonus on a sub-skill, kinda like a specialization from the Shadowrun system.

The draft before that, I had skills work as special abilities. For example, every character could jump 5ft without sweating or 10ft with a running start (wow!). But if you want your hooligan to jump farther you use up a limited character option to choose an ability that allows them to jump better. And of course I had the idea to add Jet Boots to the equipment list. There was no chance of failure, unless you had some sort of adverse situation, such as faulty equipment, or an enemy shooting you.

I don't like either of those systems, and because of my abundant self-esteem I can't see the draw backs to either of them. Feedback?

If you roll dice, you have RNG issues to worry about and people fail at shit. If you don't roll dice, there is little tension or risk.

-Username17

The d20ish system works fine for skills where you don't really care if a particular PC always succeeds or always fails or somewhere in-between. (E.g., nobody really cares if Wimpy Joe always fails at a 10' jump or if Jumpy Bob always succeed at a 15' jump; unless you're playing The Jumping Game, it's a mere side note.) However, if your skills are things like Attack or Dodge, then it's less interesting to have guaranteed success or failure.

The second system you mention is so vaguely described that it's impossible to make any comment on it at all.

The other question is how much MTP you want to allow from skills.

It's a matter of whether or not you want tension and risk in tasks like jumping. If you, as a GM, don't work them into the challenges of the game in an engaging manner, you end up with either "roll to see if the game can continue" or "your skills will never matter".

Many skill applications (like jumping) are neither contentious (like attacking) nor involve player skill (like performing an investigation). As a result, the roll would be superfluous.

Hieronymous Rex wrote:It's a matter of whether or not you want tension and risk in tasks like jumping.

Yes. This should definitely be a question worth asking. Just because it's an RPG doesn't mean every task you do should involve rolling dice. Your jumping ability should probably just be a fixed constant like your fly speed or your run speed.

Hieronymous Rex wrote:It's a matter of whether or not you want tension and risk in tasks like jumping. If you, as a GM, don't work them into the challenges of the game in an engaging manner, you end up with either "roll to see if the game can continue" or "your skills will never matter".

Many skill applications (like jumping) are neither contentious (like attacking) nor involve player skill (like performing an investigation). As a result, the roll would be superfluous.

Excellent point.

The question is, what's important to you enough to build up mechanics? And you can't say "everything".

Also, speaking personally, I'm suffering from D20 burnout. I've played some variant or another of D20 for a decade or more now. I'm kind of tired of it. However, I'll gladly play another D20 game if the setting is interesting and the mechanics fit the setting. Your mechanics are to mimic reality to a point where suspension of disbelief kicks in and to pose a resolution mechanic. The setting itself is what's going to bring people back over and over again.