PDA

View Full Version : List of Rules For My Game



Man on Fire
2012-08-30, 09:24 AM
I'm preparing to DMing first time (well, second, but first time to that group), probably in Pathfinder and I would like to discuss with you set of rules I want to estabilish in my game. Some of them are there to make game more climatic and to keep in line potential problem players (I don't know people I'm gonna DM to yet, they are my friend's buddies). These rules are quite general, you can apply most of them to D&D and other games, so I'm posting it here, instead of 3.5&PF board.

1) Group XPs (or their equivalent in other games). I know how some of players like to advance as fast as they can, often trying to screw over other players just to get more XP - from running ahead to kill monster before rest of the party gets to it, to punching rogue when he tries to open lock just so they can open it themselves. Group XPs eliminate that, because no matter what they'll do, Xps they earned will be added to the common pool with what others earned and each will get equal share. It helps making players cooperate and also makes easier to balance ecounters.

2) Climatic Skill Points. I know how players, especially in D&D are - they will never waste their precious skill points (or their equivalent in other games) for something that their characted learned, but isn't part of their dream build. It leads to stupid situations where party may be sailing for six games but next time they get to the ship they aren't any better at it than they were. I know that some try to deal with it by forbidding players from putting points in skills their character wasn't using during the game, but that only leads to ridiculous situations where players waste time doing meaningless stuff for no other reason than to point out they used that skill they wanted to increase. So I offer something different - as GM I can decide to reward players with additional skill points in things they usually don't want to waste regular skill points for. For example, if fighter was climbing a lot during the game, I may decide that in addition to his 2+int skill points he gets one or two ranks in Climb.

3) Safe Time - Simple one, it's a deal of trust between players and me, that during moments of talking neither pcs or npc will take any actions agains each other. So when party is having a talk with the bad guy, neither they can use it to take positions giving them advantage or send asassin to attack him from behind, but neither can npcs. Of course when players wants to actually set up something like that, they can tell. It's to let them safely enjoy plot and character development without fear of being set up by Dm and is also to prevent them from abusing talkin moments to have suprise attacks (not to mention those guys who like to kill people before other players get what they want from them, who ruin fun for everybody aside them).

4) 3+3 Rule. Which I balanty have stolen from 4chan's /tg/.

During character creation I want two things from my players. First is list of Three Sentences that are phillars of their character's worldview - three rules they follow, ideals they belive, things like that. First sentence must be the most important of them all, his prime directive, while third must be the least important of the three. Lets say that somebody playes a rogue. His three sentences may be 1) Live life at it's fullest, 2) Never steal from somebody, who doesn't deserve it and 3) Not everything that looks like worth stealing must be.

Second thing is a list of Three Goals in their character's life - huge goal, which will be their main one during the game, secondary goal, which is something lesser and easier to achieve, that helps him advance the main goal, and minor goal that is pretty easy to accomplish, but helps advance one of the other two. When minor or secondary goal are realized, player can replace them with new ones. Lets say somebody has the main goal of marrying the princess. Their secondary goal is to become a noble, because king won't accept son-in-law who isn't one and minor goal may be to learn to play a flute, because princess loves it's sound. Once he becomes the noble his new secondary goal may be soldify his position and reputation among other nobles and once he lears to play the flute, his new minor goal may be to find out what's princess favorite melody is.

This is done for two reasons. First is to make players get deeper into their characters. Second is to let me write adventures allowing characters to realize their goals and introducing plot points that support or question their beliefs, making the plot more character-driven.

5) Relaxed approach to tests - Generally I'm more roleplayer than rollplayer. I therefore reserve myself a right to say player doesn't need to roll on specific test and he passes automatically, if he backs it up with very impressive roleplaying (which includes staying in character). This includes mostly tests related to interaction, but also some other tests, through those rarerly, because othertwise players are wiling to abuse it to the point of annoyance. Generally the rule is - you impress me and it's climatic and I may give you a hand.

6) No Alignment - That's D&D only rule. Simply, there is no alignment in my games. That way we can avoid all kinds of problems and arguments this thing causes (like, no more "we totally can kill Orc babies, Orcs are Chaotic Evil", because there is no Chaotic Evil in the game and no more "Paladin cannot do that, he's lawful good" because there is no Lawful Good either) and it forces players to give their characters deeper personality that what can be described by two words. It also cuts out the "easy morality" - spells like detect evil are now for detecting things like demons or abberations, not to determine if somebody is evil.

Ashdate
2012-08-30, 10:15 AM
I think you're creating a lot of rules without a particular good reason to create these rules, but ultimately it's your game, not mine, so do whatever you think is right.


1) Group XPs (or their equivalent in other games). I know how some of players like to advance as fast as they can, often trying to screw over other players just to get more XP - from running ahead to kill monster before rest of the party gets to it, to punching rogue when he tries to open lock just so they can open it themselves. Group XPs eliminate that, because no matter what they'll do, Xps they earned will be added to the common pool with what others earned and each will get equal share. It helps making players cooperate and also makes easier to balance ecounters.

Do you really think this will be a problem to have a specific house rule? Certainly, you know your players better than I do, but...

... one thing you might want to consider (if Pathfinder still keeps them) is what happens with XP used for crafting.


2) Climatic Skill Points.

This sounds like it's more trouble than it's worth; if "sailing" is a thing the PCs are going to do a lot of, tell them beforehand (especially before they level, so they can put points into the associated skill), or let them hire someone to do it for them.


3) Safe Time

The simple way to "solve" this is (if using miniatures) to not allow player to put them on the board until the fighting starts. If you're not using miniatures, this shouldn't be an issue. Let the rogue-types make a stealth check to allow them to be a bit closer if they've declared they're sneaking in beforehand.


5) Relaxed approach to tests

I don't think you need a specific rule about this. In my 4e game, I keep a small spreadsheet window open that lists all the skills and each character's bonus to that skill, along with easy/moderate/hard DC values for improvisation. If there is a magical aura in the room, I can simply look over at the table and see that the Sorceress and the Psion both have great Arcana scores, and announce that they find something automatically.

More over, "rule of cool" always applies. But don't be afraid of letting them roll, even after giving a great idea/speech! Just turn failures from "no" into "you succeed, but..." responses.


6) No Alignment

But then how will Protection from X spells work? And played properly (i.e. without turning the alignment into an extreme viewpoint that-must-never-be-contradicted), alignment can be a lot of fun to play! I think getting rid of it without talking to your players is a bit of a head-scratcher.

I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm curious what your players think. Do they actually see playing a lawful good paladin as an excuse to bully the chaotic good rogue into not having fun? Or do they understand that their characters are more than two words written on their character sheet?

* * *

From my own first time DM experience, I set up all these rules in my mind about what my players could/could not do, and then was surprised when they basically said "be cool, we're not going to be jerks". If anything, the rules I added simply slowed the game down, or were quickly discarded because they weren't adding anything to the game.

What I would suggest is to sit down and run a short "prologue" (i.e. 2-3 sessions) with your players. Don't throw in any house rules, play it straight. You'll learn a lot about your players (who copies their build from the optimization boards? Who is the one who treats every combat as a tactical operation? Who gets bored during combat?) and then think about how you might want to house-rule the game.

Yora
2012-08-30, 10:31 AM
Yeah, that all sounds very reasonable and shouldn't lead to any complications.

Just don't go overboard with bonus skill ranks.

Ninjadeadbeard
2012-08-30, 01:58 PM
1) Group XPs

As mentioned this would screw with crafting, but you could always just increase the other component costs to offset that. I would personally just give one big pool of xp and split it evenly between players. This let's them craft while still helping each other level.


2) Climatic Skill Points

I like this! Nice way of improving roleplay.


3) Safe Time

While it is more climactic for the heroes and the villain to converse before their big battle, I wouldn't like this. If they positioned themselves in character though, like a Rogue who banters back at the villain while subtly moving to his flank, I'd allow it.


4) 3+3 Rule

I really like this one! I might have to steal it too.


5) Relaxed approach to tests

I'd still make them roll. Even if they make some sweet speech or roleplay awesomely, I'd make them roll. There's always a chance of failure, afterall. And besides, unless they roll a nat 1 I can still let them win that roll if they did the rolelay.


6) No Alignment

Alignment in D&D is always a problem, but I would still keep it as a stat. Mechanically? No way. But it does give me a good idea of a character's motivations and beliefs. Lawful Good can be played in very different, almost contradictory ways. It's not so shallow as you assume.

For instance, a LG Paladin. Does he lean towards Lawful or Good? Does he believe that Laws make people good? Or does he think that Good people live by laws? The former might be like Ed Asner's character from the KotOR games, a cynical old man who thinks everyone is a fool or actively falling towards the darkside if they deviate even slightly from the rules of the Jedi. The latter can be played like Spock, who follows a set of ethics and morals, but is willing to compromise his logical strictures if it helps people. The Federation in general feels like this at times since they seem to advocate that people are good in general, and good people gravitate towards ordered society.

Mnemnosyne
2012-08-30, 03:45 PM
As to your group xp: Make sure that if one of the characters falls behind due to spending xp on spells, crafting, etc, he gets more xp than the others to catch up. Important in order for crafting and all those other things to actually work properly.

Bonus skill points if you really, really want to give them seems reasonable, but keep in mind characters doing something aren't necessarily putting effort into improving it. If they are sailing but aren't actually putting in great effort to improve their skill at sailing, why should they get free ranks in Profession (Sailor)? Basically, don't give these away too often. They should have to sink some skill points if they want to be really good at things.

"Safe Time" is one I really don't like, unless I'm seriously misinterpreting it. If characters are in the middle of conversation and a sneaky one decides to take advantage, there's no plausible way to prevent this from happening. If I were the player of such a character, I would be upset if you told me I couldn't start moving into position mid-conversation because I didn't announce it beforehand. Similarly, if the players decide to suddenly launch an attack mid-conversation, you can't really prohibit them from doing so.

I like what you want from characters at creation. Good way of getting them to make a solid bit of character without trying to wring too much writing out of them.

As for a relaxed approach to tests, that's a problematic one. If the player has their character do something that makes sense and would solve the problem, of course. But if the player is relying on skills their character doesn't possess, that's not a good way to do it. This devalues the skills that another player may have put into their character. Even if no other player took those skills, it still devalues the skills, because it says 'it's a good thing you dumped those skills, because they are useless' rather than showing the players that those skills can be useful sometimes and they may be undervaluing them. Roleplaying is great, but remember that roleplaying something your character doesn't have skill ranks in isn't actually roleplaying, because you are breaking out of the role of your character. Your character doesn't have those abilities, therefore you are not playing his role.

As far as no alignment goes... You shouldn't throw it out entirely. It's also mixed in with a lot of rules. Dump some of the restrictions, many of which are silly, and never consider it an all-encompassing label, and you should never say (or allow your character to say) that someone wouldn't do something 'because of their alignment'. If that's the only reasoning a player can come up with for doing or not doing something, it bears more thought and questioning.

Most importantly, keep in mind that while a lot of alignment rules can be thrown out, some parts of the system are entirely dependent upon it. Protection from Alignment. Holy Word. Various other alignment-based spells and abilities. You've got to decide exactly how these will work if you strike alignment out entirely, so make sure and consider all of them before setting down that rule completely.

TuggyNE
2012-08-30, 03:58 PM
Note that this should be in 3.5 subforum.


1) Group XPs (or their equivalent in other games). I know how some of players like to advance as fast as they can, often trying to screw over other players just to get more XP - from running ahead to kill monster before rest of the party gets to it, to punching rogue when he tries to open lock just so they can open it themselves. Group XPs eliminate that, because no matter what they'll do, Xps they earned will be added to the common pool with what others earned and each will get equal share. It helps making players cooperate and also makes easier to balance ecounters.

An alternate solution that will probably work better is to make most combat encounters sufficiently dangerous that most or all of the group's force is necessary for safety. (Also, a party that bypasses a lock through rogue Open Lock use should already get XP in common... :smallconfused:)


3) Safe Time - Simple one, it's a deal of trust between players and me, that during moments of talking neither pcs or npc will take any actions agains each other. So when party is having a talk with the bad guy, neither they can use it to take positions giving them advantage or send asassin to attack him from behind, but neither can npcs. Of course when players wants to actually set up something like that, they can tell. It's to let them safely enjoy plot and character development without fear of being set up by Dm and is also to prevent them from abusing talkin moments to have suprise attacks (not to mention those guys who like to kill people before other players get what they want from them, who ruin fun for everybody aside them).

This seems a little forced, really, and I'm not sure it's necessary. While dramatic talking moments can be cool, sneaky types tend to be antithetical to them anyway; if you absolutely must have them, put up walls of force at strategic points.


6) No Alignment - That's D&D only rule. Simply, there is no alignment in my games. That way we can avoid all kinds of problems and arguments this thing causes (like, no more "we totally can kill Orc babies, Orcs are Chaotic Evil", because there is no Chaotic Evil in the game and no more "Paladin cannot do that, he's lawful good" because there is no Lawful Good either) and it forces players to give their characters deeper personality that what can be described by two words. It also cuts out the "easy morality" - spells like detect evil are now for detecting things like demons or abberations, not to determine if somebody is evil.

This could work out well, but a fuller description of affected spells is probably good (there have been projects for this in the past).

Gamer Girl
2012-08-30, 05:42 PM
1.Group XP is fine. I like individual XP to make each player do more myself though.

2.Well it is possible to sail for six years and know noting about sailing. It's very common for people to be...um...dumb. Character's get far too mant skill points so giving more for free is a bad idea. Plus the whole idea of having lots of skills is that a character can't be an expert at everything. Sure some players only want the cool combat skills of spot, listen and search...and they won't ''waste' a point on a silly skill like sailing. But that is where you should 'force' them to use skill points and not have a high plus in spot.

3.Not a good idea. The world freezes in time when you talk?

4. This is fine (and makes you a New School DM too)

5. This is fine (and makes you a New School DM too)

6. This is OK, but some of the fun of the game is lost if you make everything too gray.

PaintByBlood
2012-08-30, 07:39 PM
2. I can understand the want for this, and in small doses it is probably fine, but if your campaign runs for a while (like up 10 levels or more) it could be an issue in some cases.

3. I think this could take a lot of fun out of those instances, a lot of the tension. If your party starts conversing with the enemy, and they can see groups of them slowly fanning out into an enclosing circle as they desperately make with the dimplomacy... it could shut out part of the game to your players, is the point.

6. There is a much simpler solution to this: alignment is not a restriction. Different LG characters are going to have different ideas about what is and isn't right, as will CE characters. It also gives you a way to use some of the things that are really important to some archetypes, like magic circles against evil, and the protection spells.
Also, simply remind your characters that "Always Chaotic Evil" doesn't actually mean always. There are exceptions to that rule, and if they're willing to disregard those, they may well be on the way to neutral.
But still, it isn't a restriction, just a tool to help with parts of the game, and roleplaying.

yougi
2012-08-30, 11:33 PM
Group XP: I actually believe it does make Crafting a more "team" thing: "You want to craft? If you'll use my XP, you're crafting something for me too!" Could make for interesting discussions. However, personally, I do two things with XP to make it individiual: (1) I reward awesomeness and heroism, good ideas and RP with personal XP (although in small doses), and (2) when a PC dies, I make his next character come in with less XP then the rest, to "reward" them surviving, something like a 10-20% difference.

However, one thing that comes to mind: are you players REALLY going to split the party to get XP for themselves, keeping it from the rest? Are they really going to kick someone in the face to pick the lock themselves? If they do it, will you really give them XP for it? Just don't give XP like that: it's not a magical thing that pops up when you act like a jerk, it's not like a sale commission that you can steal from your colleague. If they act like that, don't give them XP, that's all.

One thing I switched to doing though, is to give XP the WoW way: now, enemies give about 10% of the XP they should (based on their CR, so pretty much 30 x CR), and reaching objectives fills up the majority of XP (retrieving the king's sword, finding your way out, saving the dog caught in the ogre's trap, finding the secret treasure room), which is split equally amongst the group. I also give extra XP, individually, for, as said before, being heroic and awesome, or for good RP (for example, if they do something that is not optimal because their character wouldn't do that) or good plans/ideas. That way, it keeps the players from going "No, we don't avoid the patrol: it's XP guys!" It also allows me to throw 20 CR1/2 guys at my LV7 Party without going "OMG they'll level from this fight alone" (yes, I do know they wouldn't, please just get the idea ;) )

Climatic Skill Points: One thing with this is it opens you up to a "why did HE get it and not me?". however, one thing I have seen done is to allow a character to keep 1 skill point per level "unused", and to invest them in a skill when necessary. Not realistic? Well, we were forced to figure out an RP reason for it that made sense, and I mean, it makes you a more rounded out character. "You know how to sail these?" "Well, I had a crush on a girl when I was a teenager, she said she really wanted to go on a sailboat..." I've also given my players 2 free points to put in any Profession skill they want, to portray the fact that they had a job before becoming an adventurer, without taking away from their perfect build, because honestly, who, before adventuring, was a professional Listener?

Safe Time: What would that solve? It would allow you to force some narratives down their throats? If your group is not interested enough to listen to your exposition, skip it! "He talks about how great he is for 10 minutes. So, what do you guys do?"

3+3: I would encourage you to use this (http://community.wizards.com/richmond-rollerz/wiki/The_10_Minute_Background). It gives you exactly what you need: plot hooks, and an overview of the personality. It tells you where the player wants the character to go. When I ask for a background for a character, I don't care what happened on their 7th birthday, and neither does the player. Plus, I don't know for you, but I've got players who can't write an interesting story to save their lives.

Relaxed Tests: I personally just adjust the DC based on what the player says, but still have them roll. However, in a game I play, the DM does exactly what you say, and it also works.

No Alignment: I've personally tried this, and I'Ve tried using D20 Modern's allegiance system, where instead of going for LG or NE, you go for the 3 most important things in your life, in order. In the end, it made even flatter characters. Without alignment, there is a large gap in terms of mechanics. One thing I saw done is to ask for alignments, but also to exceptions: for example, this character is CG, but for him, following your elders is very important, or this character is CE, but will go out of his way to not hurt a woman. These make the system broader than "there are 9 types of people in the world".

Dsurion
2012-08-31, 01:11 AM
2.Well it is possible to sail for six years and know noting about sailing. It's very common for people to be...um...dumb. Character's get far too mant skill points so giving more for free is a bad idea. Plus the whole idea of having lots of skills is that a character can't be an expert at everything. Sure some players only want the cool combat skills of spot, listen and search...and they won't ''waste' a point on a silly skill like sailing. But that is where you should 'force' them to use skill points and not have a high plus in spot.http://images.cheezburger.com/imagestore/2011/7/11/7de7d18d-7f5f-4e71-8bcf-fe826677affc.png


(and makes you a New School DM too)And that bore mentioning, why exactly?



Edit: I should really make this a useful post.




1) Group XPs [...]Eh, if you're willing to go that far, you may as well just ditch XP altogether. If you're playing with asshats, just say NO to stupidity instead.


2) Climatic Skill Points. [...]I did this with in-game books. Don't hand it out like candy and you shouldn't have a problem. If it is, maybe an intelligence check or something is in order (though that does tend to leave those who already had skill points with more skills). If anyone abuses it though... Just take away the bonuses from this rule.

Also, I tend to lump Profession, Craft, and Appraise into a single Trade skill that everyone can take one of for free in my games.


4) 3+3 Rule. Which I balanty have stolen from 4chan's /tg/ [...]Most likely, people who want to play a character will basically already do this, and people who don't care, won't bother, or won't live up to it.


6) No Alignment [...]Shuffle around alignment-based effects if you're leaving things like the Paladin's Smite/Detect in, and you'll be peachy.

Kol Korran
2012-08-31, 02:36 AM
1) Group XPs (or their equivalent in other games). I know how some of players like to advance as fast as they can, often trying to screw over other players just to get more XP - from running ahead to kill monster before rest of the party gets to it, to punching rogue when he tries to open lock just so they can open it themselves. Group XPs eliminate that, because no matter what they'll do, Xps they earned will be added to the common pool with what others earned and each will get equal share. It helps making players cooperate and also makes easier to balance encounters.
I also use group XP, but for a very different reason- much easier to calculate, and you don't get level discrepancies. However, if you're main reason for this is to curb problem players, Then i have a new rule for you- Don't play with problem players. They WILL find a wayy to make your game less fun. "Don't be a jerk and be a team player" goes a LOOOOONNNG way.


2) Climatic Skill Points.
Interesting... I give my players a set amount of skill points (a bit at character creation, and 1 skill point/ level) to invest in "non usual adventuring skill" that pertains to the campaign. Right now we're playing a pirate campaign, so Profession (sailor) and such.

But I'm curious as to what you suggest, would love to hear how it goes. only problem i see is balancing it between players- say someone identified a lot of spells while another... drank in a bar a lot. or slept. I can see players getting disgruntled at "why did HE get such and such and I didn't". I think this "awarding skill points" should be a fairly rare occasion, no?


3) Safe Time
This feels waaaaaay to forced, and too immersion breaking. A bit like a video game, I'd suggest to avoid it and instead:
- Either create situations where the villain can talk.
- Talk while in combat.
- Most preferably: Make their speeches VERY short, to the point, but with the full meaning of their agenda/ personality/ whatever.


4) 3+3 Rule.
Sounds interesting- just don't expect your players to follow through or produce something of great roleplay quality. A player may just want to come to play, kill monsters and get loot. simple as that, and that is PERFECTLY FINE. That is what makes the game for them.


5) Relaxed approach to tests
I think that in theory this rule sounds good, but I think it will lead to a lot of trouble. Not everyone is a fantastic player. A lot of roleplayers are geekish in nature, with less than exemplary expressive skills. And some players are shy, some are tacticians, some are just there to be with the guys, not to master the game or join the drama club. this will give an arbitrary (Or so it would feel) advantage to some, depriving others. And if you think it might encourage them to roleplay more? Most likely it won't. Most likely it will just turn them away from your game. Also- how are you going to judge these? "i swing my sword in a wide arch, roaring my pain and calling the name of my dead beloved, as I slash at his neck!" Was it a hit? what if the villain played majestically as well- was it a miss? was it a crit? what if he had such protections as displacement and such?

The game is a set of rules for conflict resolution. Let them solve these conflicts in a foreseeable, understood and agreed upon manner.


6) No Alignment - That's D&D only rule. Simply, there is no alignment in my games. That way we can avoid all kinds of problems and arguments this thing causes (like, no more "we totally can kill Orc babies, Orcs are Chaotic Evil", because there is no Chaotic Evil in the game and no more "Paladin cannot do that, he's lawful good" because there is no Lawful Good either) and it forces players to give their characters deeper personality that what can be described by two words. It also cuts out the "easy morality" - spells like detect evil are now for detecting things like demons or abberations, not to determine if somebody is evil.
I agree with this ruling wholeheartedly. you may need to rework some spells and affects, but it seems you're on your way. I based these on cultures/ creature types and so on in my game.

Good luck with your game!

Heliomance
2012-08-31, 08:45 AM
Character's get far too mant skill points so giving more for free is a bad idea.

What? You're the first person I've ever heard express that view. Personally I don't think they get enough - I have a tendency to give my players 50% bonus base skill points - so a Fighter gets 3+Int skill points, and a Rogue gets 12+Int.

Lord Il Palazzo
2012-08-31, 11:07 AM
Character's get far too mant skill points so giving more for free is a bad idea.I'll chime in that I've never heard this opinion expressed before either. I've actually had at least one player complain about not having enough (to the point of asking to take a flaw just to get the Open Minded feat for five more points) and most players with whom I've helped build characters definitely wished they had more for things they felt like their characters should be able to do.

As for Man on Fire's rules, I really dislike the idea of time stopping while players and NPCs are talking. If they players want to stall Baron Von Badguy while the rogue sneaks up behind him to back-attack, they should have that ability. As others have said, if your NPCs' speeches are too long and don't keep the players focused on the scent, work on making them shorter to get back to what they are interested in faster.

I like the 3+3 background, but I like the 10 Minute Background yougi linked to more. Don't make a big deal of it if some of your players don't want to do it though; some people are more interested in playing the game and having fun fighting monsters than they are in fleshing out their characters. For the players who are into it, you'll probably get something very much like this anyways but definitely encourage them to do more.

As for dropping alignment, I wouldn't do it myself, but then I'm flexible about alignment anyways. I don't ask for alignments during character building (though some players will volunteer it anyways, which is fine) and generally it doesn't come up, but if it does (someone casts Detect Evil or Chaos Hammer or whatever) I'll just say to each player who would be detected/effected "You character has done X, Y and Z so I'm thinking they're [Alignment]. Does that sound about right?" which has always worked perfectly.

Gamer Girl
2012-08-31, 07:44 PM
What? You're the first person I've ever heard express that view. Personally I don't think they get enough - I have a tendency to give my players 50% bonus base skill points - so a Fighter gets 3+Int skill points, and a Rogue gets 12+Int.

Odd, I say it all the time. Guess it gets lost in the flood of 'disagreement'.

Take just a first level(3x D&D) character:with a build getting at least a +2 from their ability, the max +4 ranks and at least +2 miscalculations from something else you get at least +8, maybe even +10. As they will encounter few DC's more then 20, they have a 50% chance of doing anything. Then as the levels go up, they can have really high ones of like +20 or more. Or to put it simply, they auto do all skill checks. This can get very boring, to the point of ''why bother with skill checks''. If a character has +40 in open locks, then you might as well not even have any locks in the world. (And note that most players won't accept the raising of DCs and will cry unfair if the treasure vault has a Ethereal multi dimensional multi time lock made of strange matter with a DC of 100).

The other problem is the Skill God problem. Where a character any can do anything. Such as having a wizard with a +20 spot so they can ''spot the enemy from miles away''. Or the classic of always maxing out the combat skills of Spot, Listen and Search.

Heliomance
2012-08-31, 08:55 PM
None of those problems are caused by having too many skillpoints, they're inherent failures of the d20 system. Having more skillpoints means players can get the skills that are necessary - spot, listen, open lock, whatever - and have some skill points left over for the flavourful skills that won't do anything.

At the point at which you have +20 to your skill, incidentally, you're going to be facing DCs above 20 regularly. And if you manage to get +40 to your open lock pre-epic, you are a lock-opening god and deserve to open every lock you come across. If you are Epic, then an "Ethereal multi dimensional multi time lock made of strange matter with a DC of 100" is perfectly fair game.

Glimbur
2012-08-31, 10:11 PM
Odd, I say it all the time. Guess it gets lost in the flood of 'disagreement'.

Take just a first level(3x D&D) character:with a build getting at least a +2 from their ability, the max +4 ranks and at least +2 miscalculations from something else you get at least +8, maybe even +10. As they will encounter few DC's more then 20, they have a 50% chance of doing anything. Then as the levels go up, they can have really high ones of like +20 or more. Or to put it simply, they auto do all skill checks. This can get very boring, to the point of ''why bother with skill checks''. If a character has +40 in open locks, then you might as well not even have any locks in the world. (And note that most players won't accept the raising of DCs and will cry unfair if the treasure vault has a Ethereal multi dimensional multi time lock made of strange matter with a DC of 100).

The other problem is the Skill God problem. Where a character any can do anything. Such as having a wizard with a +20 spot so they can ''spot the enemy from miles away''. Or the classic of always maxing out the combat skills of Spot, Listen and Search.

The rogue skill list is 29 skills. Throw out Craft and Profession and there are 27 skills a rogue might like to have. 8+ skill points plus human plus a +2 int mod means you can get 11 of them at a level appropriate level. Spot, Listen, Hide, and Move Silently all scale based on your opponent, so you really want to keep up (or cheat with magic, but magic being too good is a different argument). Open Lock, Disable Device, and Search all scale based on the DC of your target which does eventually cap. Tumble and Swim have static DCs... so by mid levels a rogue can be decent at everything a rogue might want to do and can maybe even afford to be really great at a few things.

The paladin skill list is eight things that aren't craft or profession. A paladin gets 2+ skills, has no incentive for int except for skill points, and might or might not be human. Many people imagine a paladin should be good at negotiating and determining character. That's great, but it means you can't ride your horse very well. Or cast spells in combat. Or heal non-magically. Or know the tenets of your religion. Sure, you can split your skill points and by 3rd level you can probably afford to be able to reliably treat wounds (DC 15, Wis based), make indifferent people friendly (DC 15, Cha based), and detect overt magical domination (DC 15, wis based). But you haven't studied at all for riding your magic horse. Or knowing the basics of your own religion.

Fighter is supposed to be the archetype for commanders, leaders, thugs, knights (in core anyway), and general fighting types. Their only social skill is intimidate, it is a serious commitment to be able to control a mount in battle (DC 20, Dex based), and... the skill list is just anemic. Doesn't even have profession. Like paladin, they get 2+ skills and little incentive for Int (though they are more likely to pursue Combat Expertise et al).

tl;dr Classes don't have too many skill points if you want a character to be good at everything in their archetype.

Dsurion
2012-08-31, 10:28 PM
Take just a first level(3x D&D) character:with a build getting at least a +2 from their ability, the max +4 ranks and at least +2 miscalculations from something else you get at least +8, maybe even +10. As they will encounter few DC's more then 20, they have a 50% chance of doing anything. Then as the levels go up, they can have really high ones of like +20 or more. Or to put it simply, they auto do all skill checks. This can get very boring, to the point of ''why bother with skill checks''. If a character has +40 in open locks, then you might as well not even have any locks in the world. (And note that most players won't accept the raising of DCs and will cry unfair if the treasure vault has a Ethereal multi dimensional multi time lock made of strange matter with a DC of 100).Then you have a problem with the level scaling and the power inherent with it (so do I), not the skill points. Curse those Fighters that can Swim AND Climb, those overly skilled dastards!


The other problem is the Skill God problem. Where a character any can do anything. Such as having a wizard with a +20 spot so they can ''spot the enemy from miles away''. Or the classic of always maxing out the combat skills of Spot, Listen and Search.Yeah. You know, what with that -528 to the Spot check per mile and all. Golly gee, that +20 sure does ruin the game.

Gamer Girl
2012-08-31, 11:38 PM
Then you have a problem with the level scaling and the power inherent with it (so do I), not the skill points. Curse those Fighters that can Swim AND Climb, those overly skilled dastards!


Well, it's really not an issue in my game. I run a ultra high magic, ultra high fantasy Status Que type game. So at like 2nd level you will find a banks lock made from regenerative explodium with a DC of like 50(and it explodes when you touch it...)

But I see lots of other poor DMs that can't handle the massive skill points characters get.

TuggyNE
2012-09-01, 12:22 AM
Odd, I say it all the time.

One person repeating it a lot does not mean anyone else ever says it, which was perhaps the point.


Take just a first level(3x D&D) character:with a build getting at least a +2 from their ability, the max +4 ranks and at least +2 miscalculations from something else you get at least +8, maybe even +10. As they will encounter few DC's more then 20, they have a 50% chance of doing anything.(bolded for emphasis)
Why would you... what... what's up with "miscalculations"? That smacks very strongly of someone cheating, which in no possible sense argues for your point, which is that the game provides too many skill points; if it did, there would be no need to "miscalculate".


Then as the levels go up, they can have really high ones of like +20 or more. Or to put it simply, they auto do all skill checks. This can get very boring, to the point of ''why bother with skill checks''. If a character has +40 in open locks, then you might as well not even have any locks in the world. (And note that most players won't accept the raising of DCs and will cry unfair if the treasure vault has a Ethereal multi dimensional multi time lock made of strange matter with a DC of 100).

Well, an ordinary lock, or even a very good one, probably shouldn't seriously inconvenience a level 8 rogue. Significant investment is required to open "amazing" locks before about level 7: 10 ranks + 6 ability + 3 skill focus + 2 nimble fingers + 2 MW tools = +18, which is not enough, so a custom competence item, wand of skill-booster, or something else is needed.

On the other hand, DC 100 is the realm of epic. There should be no real reason to introduce a lock that complicated at any time before about level 15 or so, I'd say; making such a lock would be horrendously expensive and require an enormous amount of skill, and probably lots of magic. Putting it on the town mayor's safe is just ... no.


Well, it's really not an issue in my game. I run a ultra high magic, ultra high fantasy Status Que type game. So at like 2nd level you will find a banks lock made from regenerative explodium with a DC of like 50(and it explodes when you touch it...)

:smallannoyed:
Granted, anyone trying to rob a bank at level 2 deserves what they get. But where does a bank get that kind of absurdly difficult lock? (Unless it's a Kundurak central vault, or something — i.e., a very high-profile storage for the most valuable items on the continent. Or perhaps some kind of Tippyverse situation, with resetting traps of "Create Superb Lock".)


The other problem is the Skill God problem. Where a character any can do anything. Such as having a wizard with a +20 spot so they can ''spot the enemy from miles away''. Or the classic of always maxing out the combat skills of Spot, Listen and Search.

... who puts Spot on a wizard? No, seriously. That's just ... I've only ever heard of that like once before (no points for guessing where that was). I can only suppose that there are some self-proclaimed optimizers in your area that are both extremely obnoxious in their quest to break games, and rather ill-educated in what exactly makes a truly effective character.

Also, in what way is Search a combat skill?

Calimehter
2012-09-02, 01:31 PM
Search can be key for finding hazards/traps and finding cool lewt that isn't just laying out on the floor. I dunno if "combat skill" was the right way to describe it . . . but back in my very early days of roleplaying, when things would be a bit more lassiez-faire regarding resource distribution, it was important to be able to find stuff on your own.

I was about to add "even if your teammates were good at it" when I realized that I meant to say "ESPECIALLY if your teammates were good at it". :amused: Since Gamer Girl is proud of all things old-school, I am guessing this is what was meant by including Search (or its equivalent in whatever system you are using) as a 'must have' and even 'optimized' skill. Its certainly what I thought of when it was mentioned.


---------------------------

Edit: On the orginal topic:

I like the idea of 2) but it might be a bit problematic, as I could see people going off on tangents in the hope of picking up "freebie" skill points, and you also run into the issue of some folks picking up more bonuses than others. I'd consider reserving it for special situations like the sailing example listed, where its easier to share amongst everyone and also harder to try and "game".

6) is fun too. Its actually the big houserule I started 2nd ed. with when I started playing, so I have fond memories of it, even if I often cop out of the extra work required to make it work in 3.x

I'm not so sure about the others, but that's just MHO. You seem to be preparing for the worst as far as a group dynamic goes, almost to the point where a better plan might simply be to say "guys, don't be jerks, or I'm not running".