If forgotten realms is the default setting for DDN then use rope should not be included. After all, Elmininster is the exemplar Realms character, and as has been said before "Elmaninster don't neeeeed no stinking rope!"
With teeth, you can cut ropes or fingers, bite babies to impress people, to take the top off of small bottles of beer, use them as an improvised percussion intrument or improvised missile weapons.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
This is why I prefer an open skill system, with many possible skills and an assumption of overlap.
The core of all checks should be the relevant ability. Then a bonus for skill training should be added if the skill is deemed relevant by the DM (this does introduce some mother-may-I into the skill system, but I think the flexibility is worth it in this case). In this system a Use Rope skill could survive, and would represent a character's great familiarity with ropes. It would be added to strength checks when climbing ropes, dexterity checks when tying ropes, and charisma checks when talking about ropes. It is still a little bit silly, but if a group doesn't like it, it is easy to ignore, because many of its uses would be covered by overlapping skills like climb, or outdoorsman (for instance when setting up camp).
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
This is why I prefer an open skill system, with many possible skills and an assumption of overlap.
The problem with this system is that skill lists already do this.
With a skill list: Are you trained in this ability? If so, roll a d20, add your ability modifier, and add a bonus for being trained in this skill. If not, roll a d20, add your ability modifier only.
With an "open" list: Are you familiar with this skill? If so, roll a d20, add your ability modifier, and add a bonus for being familiar with this skill. If not, roll a d20, add your ability modifier only.
A skill system, ideally, would be vague enough to not require taking 20 skills just to be decently competent as an adventurer, but be specific enough that it rewards specialization. An "open" list basically relies upon the DM/player to decide if the chosen skills by the party are closer to the former or the latter or a happy medium. It basically puts the burden of that aspect of game design upon the playing group (or in another light, it also allows every group to personally customize their virtual skill lists on a per-campaign or even per-character basis).
A great way of mediating this "need to find the happy medium" is letting skills cover other things with a different attribute modifier. Religion check? Wisdom to perform the ritual in such a way that you get the most benifit; Intelligence to remember if haze demons are vulnerable to fire or electricity; Charisma to bring together a group in prayer to the gods to encourage them. It allows more flex, while still encouraging specialization (and keeps an adequate focus on attributes).
In my perfect world, the skill list for DDN would be a list with 3 columns. In the first column, you have the most basic, fundamental tied-together skills - maybe only 3 skills per (ideal) attribute. In the second column, it breaks these skills down some, and the list is longer. In the third column, it breaks each of these skills down even further, for people who want a lot of specific specialization. The third could possibly include a "synergy" system where training in one grants you a bonus on other skills. Each column would list how many skills you get to choose from; basically it would be 3 seperate skill lists, and for your campaign you choose one - the most basic, the medium, and the most complex/detailed.
So "Physical Prowess" would break down into "Athletics" and "Acrobatics". Each of these would break down into things like Jump, Climb, Swim, Tumble, etc.
In going up or down complexity level, you still have a common "tree" in which to roll, so there wouldn't be any great confusion. Rolling for "Physical Prowess" would be the same as rolling for "Athletics" would be the same for rolling for "Jump" realistically speaking.
Of course, the attribute you roll with these skills would be variable in all cases.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
This is why I prefer an open skill system, with many possible skills and an assumption of overlap.
A skill system, ideally, would be vague enough to not require taking 20 skills just to be decently competent as an adventurer, but be specific enough that it rewards specialization. An "open" list basically relies upon the DM/player to decide if the chosen skills by the party are closer to the former or the latter or a happy medium. It basically puts the burden of that aspect of game design upon the playing group (or in another light, it also allows every group to personally customize their virtual skill lists on a per-campaign or even per-character basis).
A great way of mediating this "need to find the happy medium" is letting skills cover other things with a different attribute modifier. Religion check? Wisdom to perform the ritual in such a way that you get the most benifit; Intelligence to remember if haze demons are vulnerable to fire or electricity; Charisma to bring together a group in prayer to the gods to encourage them. It allows more flex, while still encouraging specialization (and keeps an adequate focus on attributes).
My whole point is that an open, overlapping skill system allows you to have your cake and eat it too. You can have lots of skills without having to cut the skill pie into smaller and smaller pieces.
I'm arguing to move away from a system in which anything you attempt that requires a roll is a skill check. Instead, everything is an ability check. It is then up to the DM and player(s) to decide if one of the skills a character possesses is relevant to the task at hand.
The same exact activity, then, could be modified by all sorts of different skills. Imagine the activity of putting together a campsite on a windy mountain. Someone with a wilderness skill could claim a bonus for his wilderness experience. Someone with climb could claim a bonus because they're good at maneuvering the steep rocky parts of the mountainside. Someone with use rope could claim a bonus because they are experts at tying the knots involved in keeping the tents from flying away (that one's a stretch, I will admit).
I do agree that the design puts the burden on the players and DM to find a nice medium between overspecialization and underspecialization. However, this approach has certain advantages. Any skill system you write up as a fairly "hard" skill system (as in, less room for adjudication) will have balance issues in any campaign that deviates from expectations. One DM might have lots of important information that can only be had by interrogating prisoners, thus making intimidate very good, while another DM might have every enemy be a clueless minion, making intimidate much less useful. I don't generally call for large amounts of DM empowerment, but the truth is that the skill system is there specifically to deal with all the situations the other mechanics don't cover. If DM empowerment is appropriate anywhere, it is in the skills system.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
The same exact activity, then, could be modified by all sorts of different skills. Imagine the activity of putting together a campsite on a windy mountain.
I don't see how this example is something that you can only do with an open skill list. In fact, you even mention skills from a skill list.
I do agree that the design puts the burden on the players and DM to find a nice medium between overspecialization and underspecialization.
This is my whole problem with the open system.
DM: Okay, pick your skills. Player: Uhm...what kind of skills? DM: Anything your character can do. Player: Uhm...do you have some examples, or a list I can choose from? DM: No, just like...skills your character has. Player: Well, like broad skills like "I'm good with tools" or more narrow like "cabinet making"? DM: Well, somewhere sort of in the middle. I'll tell you if it's too broad or too narrow. Player: So there aren't really any rules for it, I just make stuff up and you tell me if it's okay or not?
This is what I don't want to see, and it would be particularly problematic for a new player that has never even seen a skill list. You can mitigate it by using a background, but then you're picking from a background instead of a skill list (still a list) or you're not picking from a list and you hit the same problem.
I don't see the advantage an open list has over a closed list, other than "the game designers don't have to write it" and "fewer groups will complain in theory, because they made their own skill list". Especially if you use a couple different skill lists - some broad and some narrow - that the DM can use, depending upon preference. Even further, especially when you can just "Rule 0" any skill list anyhow.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
Imagine the activity of putting together a campsite on a windy mountain.
I am not sure how this is different from a skill system. You even mention skills. This just looks like a non-combat encounter in which everybody can participate - which is how they are supposed to be designed anyhow.
I do agree that the design puts the burden on the players and DM to find a nice medium between overspecialization and underspecialization.
This is my whole problem with the open system.
DM: Okay, pick your skills. Player: Uhm...what kind of skills? DM: Anything your character can do. Player: Uhm...do you have some examples, or a list I can choose from? DM: No, just like...skills your character has. Player: Well, like broad skills like "I'm good with tools" or more narrow like "cabinet making"? DM: Well, somewhere sort of in the middle. I'll tell you if it's too broad or too narrow. Player: So there aren't really any rules for it, I just make stuff up and you tell me if it's okay or not?
This is what I don't want to see, and it would be particularly problematic for a new player that has never even seen a skill list. You can mitigate it by using a background, but then you're picking from a background instead of a skill list (still a list) or you're not picking from a list and you hit the same problem.
I don't see the advantage an open list has over a closed list, other than "the game designers don't have to write it" and "fewer groups will complain in theory, because they made their own skill list".
Ah, I see the problem. When I say an "open" list I don't necessarily mean "make up skills." What I mean is that every background (or class, or theme, or whatever) could have its own list of skills, with no attempt to make a single unified skill list. Someone customizing a background would be able to grab from other backgrounds, or make up their own with DM allowance. New supplement books would be able to freely add new skills to the list, without having to try and make new ideas fit into old skills.
I do like the fact that this system makes it very easy to insert new skills into the game, and I like that advanced players could simply name their own skills, presumably working with the DM. But it certainly should not be the default for brand new players.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
Ah, I see the problem. When I say an "open" list I don't necessarily mean "make up skills." What I mean is that every background (or class, or theme, or whatever) could have its own list of skills, with no attempt to make a single unified skill list. Someone customizing a background would be able to grab from other backgrounds, or make up their own with DM allowance. New supplement books would be able to freely add new skills to the list, without having to try and make new ideas fit into old skills.
I do like the fact that this system makes it very easy to insert new skills into the game, and I like that advanced players could simply name their own skills, presumably working with the DM. But it certainly should not be the default for brand new players.
It's an interesting idea, and I would certainly have no problem with that being a module, but I don't think it's quite the best solution for a baseline.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
Ah, I see the problem. When I say an "open" list I don't necessarily mean "make up skills." What I mean is that every background (or class, or theme, or whatever) could have its own list of skills, with no attempt to make a single unified skill list. Someone customizing a background would be able to grab from other backgrounds, or make up their own with DM allowance. New supplement books would be able to freely add new skills to the list, without having to try and make new ideas fit into old skills.
I do like the fact that this system makes it very easy to insert new skills into the game, and I like that advanced players could simply name their own skills, presumably working with the DM. But it certainly should not be the default for brand new players.
It's an interesting idea, and I would certainly have no problem with that being a module, but I don't think it's quite the best solution for a baseline.
It's good as a baseline because it easily lets basic players and advanced players sit down and play together. The basic player picks a background, which tells them what they're good at. Advanced players operate in the same framework, but have much greater flexibility.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
