Monte Cook Back to Work

[Aryxbez]

I don't give a fuck about brand loyalty. If there was a better ruleset for fantasy RPG than DnD 3.X, then I'd play that.

Hell...yes, exactly! Now if only someone would get to making that!

As it stands, 4e DnD is maybe the 5th or 6th best option for fantasy RPG, and so falls well below my threshhold for systems I want to use. Other versions of DnD are actually better for fantasy RPG, then there are genre-neutral or genre-flexible games like Rifts or GURPs that do fantasy RPG better, then you get down to DnD 4e.

So what's the list here for suggested RPG's of fantasy play? I'm guessing 1.) 3rd edition, 2.)AD&D/2nd edition, 3.)Rifts, 4.)GURPS, and 5.) 4th edition D&D?

[Xur]

I believe one of those smaller systems that have been released within the past 5 years or so actually has to be good enough to be on that list. I never really looked at Barbarians of Lemuria, but was always interested in how good it would be as a D&D replacement for short games. Same with Dungeonslayers, one of those systems advertized with "old-school feeling".
Just calling on GURPS, Rifts, D&D, or HERO again and again isn't going to satisfy anyone.

[Stubbazubba]

I actually agree with Seerow: Since the level of granularity that, say, 3.5 has is unnecessary when you've only got one d20 roll to complete a task, I agree that abstracting proficiency into broader mastery levels is appropriate for a skill sub-system in D&D, and I agree that it's easier to do so with six degrees of proficiency instead of adding sixty to your 13 roll, provided that there is a more reasonable way to work opposed tests than what Mearls wrote about previously, and provided that you should be able to attempt tasks higher than your proficiency level. If you're an 'Expert' lockpick picking an Expert lock, DC should be 11, but if you're picking a Master lock, the DC should be 17 or 18, so with a high ability mod, you're kind of at half-a-proficiency level higher than your skill rank says. Grandmaster locks would autofail. Just loosening what you can attempt to two levels would improve this a lot. Doing it with multiples of 20 is the same thing, but I don't see any reason that it's better, excepting the fact that it simplifies opposed rolls.

[Josh_Kablack]

My point there was that the system with smaller skill ranks with a bigger effect accomplishes the same goal without the need for higher bonuses. Yeah, I know each rank giving +20 accomplishes the same thing, but accomplishing the same thing without the big numbers I feel is the better option, especially since as you detail it actually is the same thing.

Fair enough.

Let me clarify and re-iterate my point:

Until such time as Monte, or Mike or You or Anybody can describe an alternate system that either:

• Adds additional functionality
  or
• Does not add complexity

To the system of "each rank is a +20" I outlined in my prior post

PEOPLE ARE ACTIVELY PURSUING AN INFERIOR DESIGN

[Josh_Kablack]

Alternately, if you don't like skill bonuses, lemme flesh out the non-numeric no die roll skill rank system I suggested in response to Mearls' earlier column a bit further:

It works like this:

• You have some number of skill and task ranks ordered from least skilled / easiest to most skilled /hardest.
• A character auto-succeeds at any task below their skill rank.
• A character auto-fails at any task above their skill rank.
• A character succeeds at a task exactly equal to their rank if and only if they can accumulate more positive circumstances to the task than they have negative ones.

So if a journeyman blacksmith attempts to forge a set of journeyman difficulty horseshoes the player and the MC go back an forth for a few minutes, with each stating things like:
"I used to do horseshoes all the time in my village - so I have experience in my favor."
"Yes, but you're working in an unfamiliar forge - so you have unfamiliarity working against you"
"It may be unfamiliar, but you said it was fully supplied, the little smithy we had back in the village was just a belows, anvil, hammer and tongs. With all of these tools I should have equipment in my favor"
"It's fully supplied, but the owner wants to make sure you don't pilfer his tools, thus he keeps getting in your way, so you have interference working against you"
"Okay then, I'll ask the bard to flirt with him enough that he's of my way during the important part - that should remove the interference and give me two positive circumstances to one negative one and I can succeed"

At the design level you can either bunt on what the circumstances are letting playgroups BS their own skill challenges, or you can include a finite set of fairly broad keywords for groups to use. Either way, you still end up with a system very much like the one Mearls and Cook seem to be describing - yet simpler to describe and implement.

Now adding caveats so that characters can occasionally succeed at tasks one rank higher or occasionally fail does add a small amount of complexity, but isn't terribly difficult: just amend the auto-success and auto-fail rules, so that a large enough pile of positive circumstances shifts a skill up one rank and a large enough pile of negative circumstances shifts a skill down one rank.

[Seerow]

My point there was that the system with smaller skill ranks with a bigger effect accomplishes the same goal without the need for higher bonuses. Yeah, I know each rank giving +20 accomplishes the same thing, but accomplishing the same thing without the big numbers I feel is the better option, especially since as you detail it actually is the same thing.

Fair enough.

Let me clarify and re-iterate my point:

Until such time as Monte, or Mike or You or Anybody can describe an alternate system that either:

• Adds additional functionality
  or
• Does not add complexity

To the system of "each rank is a +20" I outlined in my prior post

PEOPLE ARE ACTIVELY PURSUING AN INFERIOR DESIGN

That's fair enough. I mentioned earlier that the rank system isn't necessarily my first choice in solutions, but as a quick and dirty mock up:


Skill Ranks:
U (Untrained, Default Rank)
D (Apprentice Rank)
C (Journeyman Rank)
B (Expert Rank)
A (Master Rank)
S (Grandmaster Rank)

-Any task that has a rating lower than your rating in the skill is an auto success.

-Any task that has a rating equal to your rating in a skill has a DC of 11.

-Any task that has a rating one higher than your rating in a skill has a DC of 20.

-Any task that is two ratings or more above your own is impossible.

-When making an opposed test, whoever has the higher skill rank wins. Assuming both have equivalent skill ranks, both parties roll a d20, higher roll wins.





That's at least as simple, if not moreso than what you laid out. Like yours it doesn't really allow for adding attributes. I'd be tempted to allow attribute modifier/2 to the roll (assuming this was the only system change. in a system where attributes are modified such that 25ish is the highest you'd see like in 2e, full attribute mod would be fine).

Your system didn't really cover how skill ranks would be distributed, so I don't go into that either. I'd probably have some version of skill points where higher tier skills cost more points to get (so at first level you could get 8 D rank skills, or a couple B rank skills), along with a condensed skill listing relative to 3.5.


edit: Thinking about it even more, I really like the rank system, because you could tie the ranks into other things as well. For example, in another topic, how to handle traps came up. I mentioned making traps use HP and having a set damage dealt on a success, and possible healing on a failure.

Well, what if you used the ranking system? Now the guy with a D rank in disable device deals 1d6 damage to the trap on a success, and heals it 1d6 if he fails. So he kind of sucks, but he's got a pretty low skill. He also only auto succeed against U ranked traps (ie the sort of shit a 5 year old could set up), against a D rank trap he has to roll an 11, a C rank has to roll a 20, and a B rank he can't even try.

But now you have your guy with a rating S disable device. He deals something like 5d6 damage on his disable device, and no longer heals the trap at all on a failure. He also only needs to bother rolling against an S rank trap, anything less he auto succeeds on doing his damage.


Similarly, if implementing into social combat, with the rules PhoneLobster was talking about in another topic, where you get social combat special abilities that deal X social damage, and can cause status effects, or just cause the effect desired when they reach 0. Well with this system you can have the base damage of their social powers determined by their skill rank.


Basically because you have these hardcoded ranks you can have the ranks provide other benefits besides just what you roll, tying them into broader better integrated mechanics without everyone feeling strictly the same. The more I think about this the more I like it.


Once again, how MC decides to implement it remains to be seen, and I may end up hating what they've got up their sleeves for 5e. But there is potential here I think.

[Swordslinger]

I personally prefer ranks over having ginormous +80 modifiers, simply because it makes the DC much harder to calculate in play, where as simply saying "This is an expert level lockpicking challenge" is very easy. If you're letting a computer run it, then the +80 is probably superior, but if it's a game run at a game table, I'd definitely prefer the skill ranks.

[shadzar]

just use smaller numbers then and not stupid ranks with "ginormous +80 modifiers".

[Seerow]

just use smaller numbers then and not stupid ranks with "ginormous +80 modifiers".

What smaller numbers do you consider appropriate?

Because smaller numbers typically lead to the problem of a novice having a 10% shot at performing an expert level task. Like stick with the typical base of 1-20 ranks, but remove any other possible outside modifiers. A average challenge for a guy with 20 ranks is going to be DC30. But the guy with 10 ranks can still manage the check. In 10 levels all you did was make it a little easier to manage a check.

That's what makes the much larger gaps at various skill levels attractive.

[shadzar]

if there is 6 "ranks"...then i should think the numbers to use would be obvious?

[Seerow]

if there is 6 "ranks"...then i should think the numbers to use would be obvious?

Okay, so you're supporting using the ranks system as described rather than big numbers?



Or are you saying just have ranks as a bonus? Cause if so the difference between your shit person and your best person is 30%. So if the world class expert can do it 50% of the time, the person who is shit at it can still do it 20% of the time.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

You have to keep the RNG in mind when you design your system no matter what. If you go too small on your number of ranks available you break the system too. For example, if you roll a D20 to resolve skills, you can't declare that people are Novice, Workman and Expert, which represent +1, +2 and +3 respectively, because then even Experts die results are hardly distinguishable from natural die rolls, and someone who is an expert needs to be obviously better than someone who just strolled up one day with no prior experience.

[shadzar]

im saying do NOT think of a number in the game as a bonus. just think of it a a number.

the tooth has a 6 DC, the eye a 1DC, the brazier a 5 DC. this even follows the whole BAB crap where everything bigger is better.

cal it a DC to go with 3rd and 4th if you want, whatever. it doesnt need some stupid flavor text with it like "expert".

there comes a time when the mechanics need to stop using terms that could be used within the context of the game. remember the term "level"?

well what if a thief wants to call himself an "expert", but doesnt have the 6, but only 3 and cant find that 6 DC trap.

using a term that would or could be used within the game world is allowing to much easy access to breaking the fourth wall, and confusion of the mechanics and the game world. how long before the entire "level" conversation is had within the game?

i want to go up a level, but we need to go down a level to be able to do that.

using just the numbers you can also then use a d6 for any checks.

to search the tooth and find something you need to roll your "score" or lower on a d6. something like that...

but a number like 1 doesnt need a new name, because it already has "one".

[Seerow]

Shadzar, it sounds like you're basically agreeing with the system I put forth. So why are you arguing with me? Because I put the word expert in parenthesis?

The only difference is I used letters instead of numbers so people don't get the silly idea in their heads that the numbers are a bonus or something. Besides, lettered rankings is something a lot of people are pretty familiar with. I know it's frequently used in racing games to differentiate the levels.

[RadiantPhoenix]

using a term that would or could be used within the game world is allowing to much easy access to breaking the fourth wall, and confusion of the mechanics and the game world. how long before the entire "level" conversation is had within the game?

So, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're saying that the game mechanics should not match up to what the characters observe.

I do not agree with that sentiment.

[shadzar]

@Seerow, im just saying the numbers should work by themselves, you dont need a name...look a good few posts back where i posted the "ranks"fpr Naruto missions.

using a term that would or could be used within the game world is allowing to much easy access to breaking the fourth wall, and confusion of the mechanics and the game world. how long before the entire "level" conversation is had within the game?

So, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're saying that the game mechanics should not match up to what the characters observe.

I do not agree with that sentiment.

so you think a rank "expert" should exist that prevents a character in the world from making a claim that can end up confusing the table, so this character calls himself an "expert" without having that rank and then the DM onders if something funny is going on with a character sheet, as well maybe other players do, and then ANY sort of stop to the game happens to clear up[ in-game speak, because the mechanics use something that should NOT be used.

note: a rogue could think himself an expert all the time, and all the while he is learning more. to call himself an expert would jsut add confussion in the case some "rank" has this as its keyword.

you have to be VERY careful with keywords.

[Seerow]

@Seerow, im just saying the numbers should work by themselves, you dont need a name...look a good few posts back where i posted the "ranks"fpr Naruto missions.

Really, I don't see the problem with associating a fluff level to each rank. The actual rank is B rank. Fluff wise this makes you an expert. Expert is not a keyword, it gives the players a general idea of level of confidence in non-mechanical terms, which is useful. I never said to make "Expert" a keyword, because things like that are fluff, as you say. That doesn't mean you can't have some sort of listing to give an idea of what level of competence a given thing is generally considered.

[shadzar]

but remember, Mearls and Cook, will use Expert as a term or keyword....

[ScottS]

Kind of a side note but I think I recall that the Robin Laws version of Runequest used a "higher skill tiers = multiples of 20 but we're hiding it" strategy. (never played the game but pretty sure it's roll-under-skill-rating on a d20, and if you trained your rating to 21, it cycled back to 1 but you gained a "mastery" which auto-increased degree of success; in opposed tests, equal levels of mastery would cancel out etc.)

[shadzar]

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... 3/20110926

1 Besides writing the L&L column, what endeavors will Monte Cook be involved in? Is he full time staff or a consultant?

Monte occupies a role very similar to Rob Schwalb, in that he is a staff designer who works remotely. The commute from Milwaukee to Seattle is a bit tough to handle on a daily basis. We’re conferencing with him several times a week via phone and Google Plus, and he’s visiting the Wizards offices frequently. I’m afraid I can’t go into much detail about the specific projects Monte is working on for us, simply because the products are still a ways out. That said: Monte is working on D&D, he’s doing design work as well as consulting, and we’re delighted to have him on board.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20110927

My job is primarily to explore options. It's the "research" part of "Research & Development."

So other than writing L&L, what the fuck IS Monte doing exactly? does anyone know?

[Seerow]

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... 3/20110926

1 Besides writing the L&L column, what endeavors will Monte Cook be involved in? Is he full time staff or a consultant?

Monte occupies a role very similar to Rob Schwalb, in that he is a staff designer who works remotely. The commute from Milwaukee to Seattle is a bit tough to handle on a daily basis. We’re conferencing with him several times a week via phone and Google Plus, and he’s visiting the Wizards offices frequently. I’m afraid I can’t go into much detail about the specific projects Monte is working on for us, simply because the products are still a ways out. That said: Monte is working on D&D, he’s doing design work as well as consulting, and we’re delighted to have him on board.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20110927

My job is primarily to explore options. It's the "research" part of "Research & Development."

So other than writing L&L, what the fuck IS Monte doing exactly? does anyone know?

It's pretty clear that they've got him working on 5e, but they don't want to piss off what fans they have left in 4e by admitting they're starting on it.

[DMReckless]

Ok, so say the skill ranks and difficulty ranks of doing stuff with the skills is set up in a 6 tier system as follows:

1 Unskilled U
2 Apprentice A
3 Journeyman J
4 Master M
5 Grandmaster G
6 Legend L

And then your Difficulty Class chart flows as follows:


Skill..........Difficulty Rank
Rank..U…. A…. J…. M…. G…. L
U………11…16…20….--…...--….--
A………7…..11…16…20…..--…..--
J………..3…..8…..11…16….20….--
M………*…..3…..8…..11…16….20
G………*….*……3…..8…..11…16
L………*….*……*…..3…..8…..11
-- Cannot perform deed
*Automatic Success

So if you are Unskilled, you can perform Unskilled Difficulty tasks half the time, Apprentice Difficulty tasks 25% of the time, and Journeyman Tasks 5% of the time, and if you are at least Master Skill Ranked, you don't ever bother rolling for the stuff an unskilled person only has a 50-50 shot at, and you can occsasionally (5% of the time) pull off a Legendary stunt.

Assign what tasks can be performed for each skill at each difficulty rank, with clear examples.

Then decide how Skill Ranks move up the ladder.

Example:

At first level, assign # Skills as Apprentice Skill Rank, and # as Journeyman Skill Rank. Each level, you may increase the rank of # Journeyman Skill Rank or lower skills by one rank tier. At # level and every # levels thereafter, you may instead raise the skill rank of one Master Skill Rank to Grandmaster Skill Rank. At # level, you may raise the skill rank of one Grandmaster Skill Rank to Legend Skill Rank.

Edit:And you're still free to add in fiddly +1/+2s in limitted amounts after the fact.

[shadzar]

It's pretty clear that they've got him working on 5e, but they don't want to piss off what fans they have left in 4e by admitting they're starting on it.

i have no doubt, but the hiding shit is old these days isnt it? this isnt anything like "Blue Harvest" where a lot of the public is involved, and in the course of "wanting to give the players what they want", it would be best to interact with them in open design rather than hide behind everything.

and what is this anyway a damn diner or an RPG? every other fucking design head is a damn cook!

Gygax-Cook-Winter-Cook-Mearls-Cook?

Too many cooks spoil the (A)D&D stew.

[hogarth]

So other than writing L&L, what the fuck IS Monte doing exactly? does anyone know?

I suspect they're bouncing ideas for 5E off him, like Paizo did with Pathfinder RPG.

[Gx1080]

Well, if they are on the "bouncing ideas" stage, that means they don't even have an Alpha version. So is waaaay too early to make annoucements. Don't want the buzz to wither off and die.

There's also the desire to stall the inevitable reignition of the Edition Wars, but is a minor factor.