xBlackWolfx
2012-12-09, 01:40 AM
Back when I was on rpgnet, I was quite surprised when i first found out that first edition DnD didn't have skills, I didn't understand how the game could function. It'd be like an rpg without character stats, it just wouldn't be possible!
After reading basic fighting fantasy (a DnD 1 retroclone) I came to realize it wasn't completely necessary, though I dont understand the advantages of it beyond simplicity.
Alot of the people over on rpgnet's development forums seem to like to make games with odd features; they think you're inept if you make anything remotely normal, nothing short of something as odd as mechanical dream would make them accept that you aren't unimaginitive and simple. For instance, they often criticized me in that most of my designs feature a typical system with attributes and skills, though I know of few games that don't differentiate the two.
I have been working on three different rpgs for the past few years, one of a fantasy setting, one for a superhero setting, and one for a high-magic setting (where the characters are all mages). I have contemplated not having skills for two of these. The mage game would make sense without skills since a character's abilities mostly focuses on the spells they know rather than mundane skills. I think it would work fine without skills, but I have also been thinking about doing this with the supers game. I dont know why, but again I think its just because it would make characters a bit too complex. I avoided skills in the mage game to emphasize focus on the spells. In the supers game, attributes+skills+powers is a bit much. And skills seem rather pointless since most supers don't have a wide diversity of skills beyond those that directly contribute to combat, with occasional scientists or occultists. If a character is meant to be a scientist or computer hacker or whatever, I would just treat that as an advantage saying that they can do those things, with their intelligence attribute being used for any necessary checks. Basically, characters would be made up of attributes, powers, and optional advantages.
Anyway, is a system without skills really practical? Does it actually have any advantages, because the only systems I have seen without skills are nostalgic retroclones and games meant to be highly simplistic. Could I do without skills, or am I making a mistake here? And just a note, the characters would have attributes to cover some of the skills (such as how DnD has the charisma attribute, which was made before the various 'social' skills came about). In the case of my supers rpg, characters would have attributes for combat prowess (I may have two, one for offense and the other for defense, but I'm not sure yet).
After reading basic fighting fantasy (a DnD 1 retroclone) I came to realize it wasn't completely necessary, though I dont understand the advantages of it beyond simplicity.
Alot of the people over on rpgnet's development forums seem to like to make games with odd features; they think you're inept if you make anything remotely normal, nothing short of something as odd as mechanical dream would make them accept that you aren't unimaginitive and simple. For instance, they often criticized me in that most of my designs feature a typical system with attributes and skills, though I know of few games that don't differentiate the two.
I have been working on three different rpgs for the past few years, one of a fantasy setting, one for a superhero setting, and one for a high-magic setting (where the characters are all mages). I have contemplated not having skills for two of these. The mage game would make sense without skills since a character's abilities mostly focuses on the spells they know rather than mundane skills. I think it would work fine without skills, but I have also been thinking about doing this with the supers game. I dont know why, but again I think its just because it would make characters a bit too complex. I avoided skills in the mage game to emphasize focus on the spells. In the supers game, attributes+skills+powers is a bit much. And skills seem rather pointless since most supers don't have a wide diversity of skills beyond those that directly contribute to combat, with occasional scientists or occultists. If a character is meant to be a scientist or computer hacker or whatever, I would just treat that as an advantage saying that they can do those things, with their intelligence attribute being used for any necessary checks. Basically, characters would be made up of attributes, powers, and optional advantages.
Anyway, is a system without skills really practical? Does it actually have any advantages, because the only systems I have seen without skills are nostalgic retroclones and games meant to be highly simplistic. Could I do without skills, or am I making a mistake here? And just a note, the characters would have attributes to cover some of the skills (such as how DnD has the charisma attribute, which was made before the various 'social' skills came about). In the case of my supers rpg, characters would have attributes for combat prowess (I may have two, one for offense and the other for defense, but I'm not sure yet).