Specialization and Assumed Competence

GROGNARD WARNING: This post is going to talk about things like "game balance" and "character builds".  Bear with me, because the conclusion is one that you'll probably agree with.

Imagine a dungeon X that is balanced for characters named Bard, Thief, and Barbarian.  The dungeon has 20 monsters in it, each with 18 HP.  The dungeon is balanced so that it provides an appropriate challenge for our three adventurers.

Then the edition changes, bringing new abilities to Barbarian.  Now Barbarian does twice the damage he did before.

Now, if you want to rebalance dungeon X so that it is still balanced for Bard, Thief, and Barbarian, you'll have to increase the HP of all the monsters in the dungeon by 33%.  Now it still takes the party the average number of hits to kill all the monsters.

The monsters all have 24 HP now, instead of 18 HP, but the balance is preserved.

But consider Bard and Thief.  If they solo-attack a monster that they could kill in 3 hits before, it now takes them 4 hits to kill it.  They have gotten more incompetent.

Not because their attack and damage bonuses on their character sheets have gone down, but because the world has changed around them.

The dungeon is still balanced, and still holds the same difficulty for the party, but the assumed competence is lower.

And don't assume that Barbarian getting double damage is unbalancing!  Thief and Bard got new abilities, too!  Now Bard's has a Diplomacy skill of +10!  And Thief has Disable Device at +10!

Now, in certain adventures, the Diplomacy and the Disable Device can be way more useful than the double damage thing.  Maybe Thief and Bard are thrilled with their new abilities and Barbarian is sad that he got the shitty end of the stick.  Or maybe they're all balanced (despite being "incomparables").  And maybe all 3 players are happy with their new abilities.  it doesn't matter.

But it doesn't change the fact that the assumed combat competence of Thief and Bard has gone down.

In order to balance the game, Thief and Bard have become more incompetent to balance out Barbarian becoming more competent though specialization/customization/whatever.

Likewise, Barbarian and Thief have gotten shittier at Diplomacy, although their character sheet doesn't show it.

And although the numbers on Barbarian and Bard's character sheets haven't changed, the DCs of all the locks in the world have just gone up by a point or two.  They've become more incompetent, and they never even realized it.

Specialization lowers the assumed competence of the adventurers.

This is a subtle effect.  

On the macroscopic level, dungeons are just as hard as they always were.  Dungeon X has been rebalanced so that it still poses the same challenge for Thief, Bard, and Barbarian.  And the flavor of dungeon X certainly hasn't changed.  So you can't blame the three adventurers for not noticing that they've become slightly more incompetent in most things.

The insidious effect of lowering the assumed competence is that it makes it harder for the party to participate (as a group) in things that now require specialization.  Talking to monsters is now more solidly the domain of the bard, because he has the Diplomacy +10.  Combat becomes more hazardous for the thief and the bard.

To a certain degree this is a good thing.  We already rely on specialization when we choose classes and roll for stats.  It's good to differentiate characters mechanically as well as conceptually.

But.

The more specialization you bake into a system, the more specialization that is assumed to be present in the average adventuring party.  And the lowers the assumed competence, and makes it harder for the improperly-specialized character (which is most characters most of the time) to do heroic things, like sneak past an orc, pick a lock, or lie to an ogre.

And I like games where everyone has a decent chance of sneaking past an ogre, picking a lock, or lying to ogres.

I'm not saying that thieves shouldn't be the best at sneaking past ogres, I'm just saying that that type of specialization makes it harder for the party to participate in heroics.

What is appropriate for a single-hero game becomes restrictive in a party.  Systems with less mechanical specialization (less "Ride Horse +17") allows for more heroics, because more people are participating in those heroic attempts, and with better chances of success (except for the guy who put all of his points into "Ride Horse"--who is equally or more likely to succeed).

Edit: Here's a comment I made on G+ talking more about this:

Now, most people want a little bit of specialization baked into the game.  Everyone wants fighters to be better than wizards at killing things, for example.

But the question of "how much better?" is not a trivial one, and I don't think it's an intuitive one, either.

Likewise with skills.  "How much better do I want to the trained character to be than the untrained character?" is a question that has a different answer depending on which group of players you poll.  

If everyone is class Adventurer and is equally effective and equally generic, then there is no difficulty inflation due to specialization.  Like DCC funnels or other TRPGs.  Some of those are fun games.

But most people eventually want their characters to specialize, but the question is, to what degree?  Because the more advantages we give the specialized guy, the more the difficulty of that task increases for everyone else in order for the challenge to be appropriate.

And other games use lots of specialization, and you see strong role protection even at level 1, and some of those games are fun, too.

I think this is a more granular distinction that just edition warring.  Like, if we want to debate how much of a skill system is appropriate for your group, we should be aware of the relationship between specialization and assumed competence.

The Case for Narrow Ability Scores

Ability Scores, What's Up With THEM???

In OD&D, ability scores only do two things:

1. Roll-under mechanics (roll under your Strength to succeed).

2. Generating ability bonuses.

Jack Vance Walks Into a Pilates Studio

So I read through Jack Vance's significant corpus this year. It was very edifying.  And satisfactory to finally be reading some Appendix N material.

Why if, you all knew how shallow my Appendix N exposure truly was, you'd punch a hole in your computer screen, break your keyboard over your knee, and urinate all over your hard drive. Then you'd put all of those things in a box, fill it with ox blood and the chimneysweep's curse, and mail it to me.

That's the singular reason why I don't post my address online.

Anyway, Jack Vance is awesome.  I get the appeal of Vancian magic.  I do, I really do.  It's a fantastic storytelling device.  Chekov's ammo, really.

But.

Nowhere does he have spell levels. Vance's wizards are more flexible than that.

Statistical Weight

One big difference from old school DnD and younger forms is the weight that it gives stats.

That is: how much STUFF does the Intelligence stat actually do in your system of choice?  How many pieces of the mechanics does your Strength stat touch?  Obviously, the trend through different editions of DnD has been for stats to carry more and more weight.  But why?

This is sort of a complicated question, and it lies at the heart of the different design philosophies.  Here's a pie chart for credibility.

Armor and Inventory Jr.

Alright, wow.  People are interested in inventory systems.  (I'm so glad I'm not the only one.)

First, I probably should apologize.  Yesterday's post was the synthesis of a dozen other brilliant inventory systems that I've seen and osmosed.  And since attribution is important, thank you +Logan Knight +Brendan S +Jack Mack +Jack Shear +Thomas Fitzgerald +Erik Westmarch +Scrap Princess +James Raggi (and all the people I'm forgetting) for sharing my derangement for armor and inventory systems, and then writing about it.  I'm sorry I didn't attempt to credit you all (although you can see why I didn't).

I also apologize in advance for if I ever write about weapons.

Armor and Inventory

You've already seen most of these rules in some form or another, but I wanted to write them all down here because GODDAMMIT encumbrance and helmet-scavenging don't have to be complex and they can even be fucking FUN.

Inventory

You have a number of inventory slots equal to your Strength score.  So, if you have Str 13, you can carry 13 things.  (This may seem low, but I don't like to think of adventurers clanking around like thrift stores or hoarding newspapers like old ladies.  Leave the rolled-up paintings on the donkey.)

If this your inventory slots are exceeded by 1-5 items, you are halfway encumbered (you struggle to swim  and move a little slower).  If this number is exceeded by 6-10 items, you are fully encumbered (you sink like a stone and move at half speed). If you want to carry more than that, you're just staggering around, like a dude trying to carry all his groceries from the car in one trip.

A number of your inventory slots are fast inventory, equal to half of your Dexterity score.  These are items that you can reach instantly--hanging from your belt, in a scabbard, whatever.  Draw a box on your character sheet (top of the inventory, maybe) to indicate this.  So, if you have Dex 11, you have 5 items that you can draw/use at a moments notice.  Everything else is in your backpack, and takes 1d6 rounds to dig out, or 2d6 rounds if you want to avoid scattering shit all over the floor.

You can buy a fancy backpack that gives you +2 inventory slots, or you can buy a fancy bandoleer that gives you +1 fast inventory, but you can't wear both at the same time.  Your players will be fighting over who gets the pocketed belt and it will be awesome.

Yet Another Damn Skill System

A few days ago, I got into a small discussion--barely a chitchat, really--with +Paolo Greco about our mutual love for diminishing returns in dice systems.  (He has a elegant example over at his blog.)

I've come to realize that there are a lot of ways to generate different trends with dice.  This is because I think about dice a lot.  I walk around with a couple in my pocket.  I fall asleep with dice in my bed.  Once I drank too much at a party and vomited, and that was like, 30-40% dice.  I think I rolled a 23.

Anyway, here's a diminishing return system for skills.

Another Damn Skill System

It's like a big smash up of Burning Wheel, BRP, and every single skill system I've ever read, all at once and forever.

You have skill slots equal to your Intelligence score. You can pick up as many skills as you want, but once you run out of skill slots, you need to start overwriting them.

There is no skill list.  You're grown-ups.  If you want to be good at using a rope, then just write it on your character sheet.

Caveats:

• “Thievery” is too broad of a skill. Use “burglary”, “pick-pocketing”, etc.
• “Wizard knowledge” is also too broad. Use “necromancy”, “dead languages”, etc.
• There is no "diplomacy" skill.  Roleplay it and/or roll under your Cha.
• There is no "search" skill.  Tell the DM where you are looking.
• There is no "perception" or "bluff" skill either.  

There is some wiggle room. Can “mountaineering” climb a wall? Probably. Ask your DM.

Every skill you have can be represented by a number from 1 to 16, called the rank. To attempt a skill, roll a d20. If you roll on-or-under your skill rank, you succeed. If you succeed by 10 points or more, it is a critical success, and you can choose an adjective to describe exactly how you succeed, like “irreversibly”, “reversibly”, “quietly”, or “impressively”. If you roll a natural 20, you have rolled a fumble, and the DM will invent some dire consequences.

The highest you can raise a skill is 10 + character level.  Or 16.  Whichever is lower.

Assumed Skills and Untrained Ranks

You are assumed to be literate, proficient in basic physical skills (running, jumping, climbing, swimming), familiar with your own background (the culture of your social group, the geography of your homeland, and the language of your people) and anything else that makes sense. For these skills, you have an untrained rank equal to whatever the most relevant stat is.

For skills in which you are non-proficient, you have an untrained rank equal to half of whatever the most relevant stat is.

Gaining New Skills

You start the game with 2 skills at Rank 10. Roll one skill on your racial table, and another skill on your class table. Thieves roll twice on each table, and so start with 4 skills at Rank 10.

You gain new skills by announcing “I want to start learning this skill.” and then writing it down on your character sheet at a starting rank equal to your untrained rank (half the relevant stat for most skills).

You learn Int-based skills (lores) a little differently. You begin learning a lore when you start studying it in a school or library, or from a tutor. There are some exceptions to this. You can learn “wilderness lore” by living in the woods, or “goblin lore” by dissecting a lot of goblins. Use your common sense. All lores start at Rank 1.

Advancing Skills

You advance a skill by using it. When you use a skill and succeed, put a check mark next to it. When you have a few days to relax in town (usually between adventures) you can erase all three check marks and roll a d20. If that d20 roll is equal-to-or-higher than the current skill Rank, the Rank improves by 1. Note that Ranks are limited by level (Max Rank 11 at level 1, for example).

You advance a lore by studying it. You can raise a lore by 1 point when you either (a) studying a new source for a week, or (b) studying an old source for a year. A source can be a book, a library, a sage, or whatever.  New sources are much faster, and so it pays to travel to foreign libraries and seek out distant sages.

Death and Dismemberment Upon the Table

I wrote some a Death and Dismemberment table to roll on when your PCs drop to 0.  I do this because I'm very bad at "fun" and very good at "I wanna type some numbers and roll dice in bed".

You gotta make two rolls before you find out what happens to the PC, but then again, this only happens when your PCs are dying, so hopefully it won't happen too often.

I tried to keep it simple enough that you could sorta memorize after one reading, which is good, but it also means that you miss out on all the ridiculous injuries like, "46 on a d100: your nipple is cut off and the monster chokes on it.  Roll on the Choking Chart to see how this resolves." but, eh.

Here it is ---------------> boom