Mike Mearls' latest article sets forth some more specifics on previous articles' and ideas concerning attributes and their tie-in to skills or actions. In this article Mr. Mearls describes how climb might be used in the upcoming edition of D&D. I like the concept. Of course.
There are some details in the write I like when I get a set of rules. For example, the rate of climb based on strength is a nice touch. The unique skills are nice as well (ie. spider climb, fast climb).
As a general rule in C&C we have avoided creating unique skills and creating specific rules regarding skills. This is primarily because there are so many variables that can go into any situation that making one rule might require so many exceptions as to make the rule pointless. Climbing is a good example. Climb rate can be effected by strength as well as dexterity as well as skill. It can also be effected by size! A 20 foot tall giant with a 20 strength would likely climb faster than 35 feet a round. Or, at least it could climb faster than a 6' tall human with a 20 strength (assuming climb skill is equal).
In any respect, as you can see, exceptions and other rules would need be included. Then considering the vast array of creatures and conditions in a fantasy world, the rulings could become astronomical. One could make rules to consider these situations, but one would likely begin entering the rule bloat realm.
For C&C, we preferred to keep the basic rule as simple as possible and allow those playing the game to create the depth they want or desire.
We also don't particularly like writing lots of rules.
I like the direction the game design is headed. I gave 4e a short whirl but found it too much for me. I long ago came to the conclusion that I prefer my games to have quite elastic rules. If I desire complexity, I should be able to lump it on top of pre-existing rules without effecting anything and should I desire more simplicity, I should be able to pull whatever I do not like without effecting the game.
Added: The idea is not new to C&C. Using attributes as the skill or action resolution nexus extends far into DnDs history and extends into other games as well.
Added: I see there is an extensive discussion of this topic at Enworld.
There are some details in the write I like when I get a set of rules. For example, the rate of climb based on strength is a nice touch. The unique skills are nice as well (ie. spider climb, fast climb).
As a general rule in C&C we have avoided creating unique skills and creating specific rules regarding skills. This is primarily because there are so many variables that can go into any situation that making one rule might require so many exceptions as to make the rule pointless. Climbing is a good example. Climb rate can be effected by strength as well as dexterity as well as skill. It can also be effected by size! A 20 foot tall giant with a 20 strength would likely climb faster than 35 feet a round. Or, at least it could climb faster than a 6' tall human with a 20 strength (assuming climb skill is equal).
In any respect, as you can see, exceptions and other rules would need be included. Then considering the vast array of creatures and conditions in a fantasy world, the rulings could become astronomical. One could make rules to consider these situations, but one would likely begin entering the rule bloat realm.
For C&C, we preferred to keep the basic rule as simple as possible and allow those playing the game to create the depth they want or desire.
We also don't particularly like writing lots of rules.
I like the direction the game design is headed. I gave 4e a short whirl but found it too much for me. I long ago came to the conclusion that I prefer my games to have quite elastic rules. If I desire complexity, I should be able to lump it on top of pre-existing rules without effecting anything and should I desire more simplicity, I should be able to pull whatever I do not like without effecting the game.
Added: The idea is not new to C&C. Using attributes as the skill or action resolution nexus extends far into DnDs history and extends into other games as well.
Added: I see there is an extensive discussion of this topic at Enworld.
1 comment:
Sorry, if my idea seems dumb, but isn't that one of tbhe things 4e does pretty well? Having a relatively small set of basic rules and adding complexity very local and customizable by using powers?
Post a Comment