Firestorm Armada: Terran cruisers

For the most part unlike many of the other models I’ve gotten for Firestorm Armada, the Terran cruisers are kind of ‘blah.’ They really don’t have the detail of other models from the Terran fleet line (sadly I think the Terran carrier model is a little lacking too). Because of this, I opted to try a two color scheme.

To speed up the washes, I put down varying base coats for different parts of the mini and then applied a black wash to the entire model. For the metallic base coats this worked well, especially the gold portions near the engines. A little less so for the other sections of the ship, however. I really need to pick up some inks. I think they will likely have a much more uniform distribution of color compared to thinned out paint washes. I’ve tried gathering up much of the wash that pools on the upper parts of minis with another dry brush but I still get some spotting.

To get around the excess pigment from the black wash, I’ve done some liberal high contrast highlighting. It’s given the models a very weathered look. I like it, but I’m not sure how the entire fleet will look doing something similar. Likely it’ll look almost too much of a rag tag fleet. I might tone down the dry-brushing for the other ships a bit and stick to just the raised edges.

Keeping a manageable board game collection

MassiveBoardGameCollectionThis month I’m not putting up a board game review, rather I’d like to talk about how I manage my board game collection. No numbers to back this up, but I’d wager that board games and game companies have exploded over the past 10 years. As geek culture goes, board games seemed to have become a popular pastime with gaming groups and at the very least, become an alternate for a lot of RPG folks to dabble in periodically. So with a large number of games being released every year, you can get overwhelmed with choices. It can be easy to slip into a habit of buying far more than you can realistically play, so I’ll pass on some criteria I’ve used in maintaining my board game collection.

I think what immediately what comes to mind is the Jone’s theory for board game collections which is likely a popular guideline. To paraphrase the theory, it is assumed that you have limited time and space for your collection. In order to maximize the types of games to play, you should remove titles that are redundant. It’s best to just keep one game of a particular theme or mechanic, facilitating the opportunity to play a larger variety of games.

This by far is a really good rule to adhere to with your game library. Between game mechanisms and theme, I would put more emphasis on game mechanisms for deciding what games to keep. Games with very similar mechanics are likely ones I will cull (or shy away) from my collection. It can lead to some hard choices, but I am a firm believer of keeping the number of games in your library manageable. The Jone’s theory is a good initial rule to apply to deciding what games to keep and what to let go. However I have a few others.

Realistic Gaming Habits – This is the big first step. You should sit down and critically think about your available free time for gaming. What opportunities do you have to get a huge group together? Are you playing every week or once every 2-3 months? When you play, do you have a full evening you can set aside, or are you limited to about 2 hours or so. Answering such questions honestly will provide an initial guideline for what kinds of games you should pick up for your collection

Number of Players – When you play, how many people can you get around the table? Are you usually limited to games for 2 people? If you have a crowd that stops by, could you handle a game for 6-8 players? I’ve shied away from a lot of games that require at least 3 players. Although I have a few regulars at my table, I want a game I can pick up and play at any time. Usually this means grabbing something I can play with my wife. Having a sizable portion of games that need at least 3 players means I’ve got more games just sitting on the shelf.

At the same time, you do want to be flexible. Having one or two games that can handle a larger group can work. That way if you have that occasional situation with lots of people over, you can pull out a fun game. I’ve also made an effort to get games that can have up to 5 or 6 people. With my current social circle of married couples, having lots of games that can handle only 4 people isn’t ideal. However, a key point is to make sure the bulk of your games can accommodate the typical number of people you get around the table on a regular basis.

Types of Players – My wife is not a huge strategy player, and war games are not something she enjoys. I’d say the same for a fair mix of our friends when we play games. Yeah, I can invite the guys over once in a while for a game of Risk 2210 or Battletech, but it’s not a regular occurrence. Something like Smallworld is about as much of a war strategy game our friends as couples would like (war games just aren’t their style). So if I have a few of those games already on my shelf, should I really pick up something else like Axis and Allies? Likely not.

At the same time, I do like having a flexible collection. Party games have a place for me. We do entertain, and by far playing something more approachable for people like Incan Gold and Apples to Apples are popular titles for me. I’ve got a core group of players that can handle a bit ‘heavier’ games, but having party games accessible is a good option. So when considering the breakdown of your game library, be frank with yourself about what your friends like to play. Dabbling a bit in different types is fine, but put some thought into new purchases. If the bulk of your players enjoy lighter games, would something like Power Grid really get enough play at your table?

Space – Honestly I think folks tend to forget about this. For me, apartment living means I need to consider the amount of space a stack of games takes up. Even if you’ve got the space it’s easy to quickly have that single shelf mushroom into an entire wall. Having a huge bulky box can give me pause at times. Conversely, it has also encouraged me to pick up some other games. Saboteur and the Resistance have some limits on how many players I can realistically get at my table. However the boxes for the games are tiny and compact. If they were full size boxes like something for Settlers of Catan, I would likely rethink picking them up. But the small boxes meant less space, and something I’d be more inclined to have, even if it isn’t something I’d get to the table frequently.

Time – I would love to get some marathon games in once in a while. However I’ve come to realize that it’s simply not the type of games my friends like to play. Something upwards of 2 hours is likely tops that I could realistically play. So I tend to gravitate to ones that can be played in 45 minutes to that occasional hour and a half game. Honestly I don’t even think I could sit down for something like that any more. I could possibly stretch a longer game out over a few nights if I really wanted too, but then I’d run into the problem of having the table space to keep it up over a few days. Look critically at what the time you can expect to set aside for games. Consider too, would your friends be happier playing 2 different games for an evening (or giving a game another go) compared to a lengthy session with just one game?

Price Tag – Something I think we all dread to talk about and admit truthfully. Gaming is our hobby and we likely are far willing to spend a bit more cash on games than we care to admit. Yet, it’s something that you should consider. There are a ton of new releases that come out every year. Continually buying that newly released $60+ game can build up over the years. Are you really going to have the time and opportunity to play that game on a regular basis?

At the same time, this also can be a deciding point to pick up games that might be redundant in your collection. I was thrown off slightly with buying the Resistance. It needs a lot of players. But it was a great party game, a small box size, and pretty darn cheap. The same could also be said for Eaten by Zombies. I have a few deck building games already, however the theme, compact box, and very reasonable price made me more inclined to pick it up.

The Jone’s theory is a great judging system for deciding how to keep your game collection manageable. Still, there are a few other characteristics I use to see if a game is worth becoming part of my collection. It does keep me from picking up a lot of great games. I would love to get Twilight Imperium 3rd edition. I love the theme, components, and think a deep strategy game would be tons of fun to play. However once I consider the time needed to play, the audience of players I’d need around the table that would actually enjoy it, the need for at least 3 players, not to mention the bulky box, I’d have to reconsider picking it up (especially given its price tag). Yeah that is something I could keep for years in my collection, but how frequently would I play it? Maybe it would be better to leave that slot open for a game or two that I’d get to the table more.

DMing a solo player party – Part 2

So for a while I tried DMing a single person and found you could run a fun 4E game. However changes are needed to how you typically run it. Last time I talked about the general ideas of DMing a single person for a D&D game. This time I’d like to get into some tips to make the game work mechanically.

Three is the magic number – Coming up with interesting encounters was a challenge, until I just decided to round out the party with a few NPCs. I originally used PC types with a limited power selection of one at-will, encounter, and daily power. After the DMG2 came out, using companion characters was another option. However, I found with a smaller group the use of a daily power was really needed over having a utility companion power.

With a trimmed down list of power choices, having the player helm another NPC in fights wasn’t a difficult task. I ended up running the other NPC in combats. Having 3 combatants gave me enough of an XP budget to provide interesting opposition for fights. I could field a fair mix of monsters with even some traps/hazards thrown in.

Spread the skills around – One critical thing was making sure the NPCs in the party complimented the player. I think with a larger group, you can have a lot of repetition with character roles. However with a smaller group you really need to cover a lot of different roles in the group. It gives the player enough resources with the abilities of the NPCs to help them get through fights, recover after them, and keep the action moving.

So I would really try to make sure different class roles are covered. My player was running a rogue, so I complimented them with a fighter (to maximize the player’s ability to get sneak attacks), and an artificer for a little healing and some controller abilities. If any class is needed, you should really try to make sure there is a leader-type with the group. Even if it is a secondary role, such as a paladin or druid, having that little bit of healing utility really helps out.

The player is still the star – Even with a few companion character/NPC types around to make fights more interesting, I kept the player the center of the action. The character is the leader of the party. The NPCs in the ‘group’ defer to his/her judgment and listen to the boss. Occasionally I’d feed the player some information via a group companion character, but very rarely. Once I kept this up the player realized that they were in charge and decided the plan of action. They never bothered to metagame and prod the party NPCs for info. I’d reply they had no idea and defer back to the player.

For skill challenges, the player was the one making the checks. I kept NPC skill checks to a minimum and made sure that the player was the one actively doing things in challenges. I would frequently limit the NPCs to just making aid another checks for skill challenges. It was a nice way to give a little help to the player, but not have NPCs dominate skill checks. I also made sure I made all the skill rolls for the NPCs, to reinforce the idea that the companion characters were there to support them and help out. They were simply a resource for the player, but not the ones driving the action.

Using these tips I kept things interesting for the player, with fun fights and just enough resources to allow them to have some heroic adventures. Even with the other NPCs, the player felt in charge of the action and was the center of the story. Having some companion NPCs also allowed me to slightly push the story a certain direction if needed. However they really added to the player’s game, rather than dominating their influence on the story.

To wrap things up, you can run a 4E D&D game with a single player as the party. It takes a little work and a willingness to have a few NPCs tag along. Yet in the end the player has enough resources and abilities at their disposal to strive for some exciting challenges. All the while they are the center of the story and can make for some engaging and interesting adventures.

Announcement of Sparta Studios

A quick newsflash of sorts. Studio Starta has been annouced from the folks that make Uncharted Seas, Dystopian Wars, and a favorite of mine, Firestorm Armada. It looks like they will be working on various games in the Firestorm Armada universe with many different games and scales being released involving ground warfare. The concept is a series of games related to a planetary invasion, moving from 10 mm, 15 mm, up to 28 mm depiciting various types of scenarios (from mass combat of combined forces to small skirmish battles). It’s a pretty ambitious range of games and figures.

I do wonder about the competition though. 40K seems to be the 800 pound gorilla for futuristic skirmish-type mini games (not to mention a few others like infinity and alternate history settings like Dust: Warfare). As for sci-fi large scale battles with combined forces, Dropzone Commander has made a recent splash. Thier models do look gorgeous, although I’m balking a bit with the prices.

Seems a year or so ago, the 10-15 mm range was wide open for a major sci-fi game. Games Workshop dabbled in it a bit with different games, but the core following of that universe seems to enjoy the heroic scale and skirmish type battles. With Dropship Commander however, I think things have gotten a tad crowded for Spartan Games.

I do admit however that thier idea is pretty interesting on the different ranges and types of battles they want to mimic with various rulesets. I’m not too keen on the 10 mm armor combat but the 15 mm scale battles sound fun. I’ve been wanting a more sci-fi themed game for 15 mm stuff. Love Flames of War but dabbling in a different genre for that scale of minis would be a nice break. I guess time will tell. However, if they can link it to a larger campaign mode incorperating Firestorm Armada, they might have an interesting hook to draw in some players.

[HT to the Shell Case for passing this news along.]

DMing a solo player party – Part 1

Willingham-IronCobraTwo years ago I had a few players drop from my group. It’s typical given where I live. Many westerners that come through Korea are here temporarily, so it is difficult to keep a lot of players for more than a year. So I was at the position of having just one player and ready to wrap up my 4E D&D game until some other time when we could get more around the table.

Thing is the other person did not want to stop. They really enjoyed the game and were perfectly willing to do so as a solo player. I agreed and sat down to try and see if I could make it work. So we played for several months. At the end I can say with confidence that, yes, you can play 4E D&D with a single player party. However you definitely have to alter things to make it work.

Limit options – Here’s a thing about roleplaying major conflicts for players, typically most of it has little to do with the DM. Sure you get some of it as players face off against you through an NPC, but the bulk of the real choices players grapple with around the table has little to do with you. It’s all about the interaction with the other players.

I mean it. Folks don’t want to admit it, but the DM usually just sets the stage. They give the group that quandary to solve. It is the party going back and forth with each other that makes the bulk of your typical engaging RP in D&D. Do you go left or right? Do you go after the crazy wizard or warn the villagers about the goblin horde coming their way? When a group is noodling through a solution in character that is where you get a lot of meaningful RP.

With a single player that is thrown out the window. That person is in charge of where the game goes. Having a ton of options and possible choices might make up for an interesting session in a large group. With a solo player it can become daunting as they get saddled down with so many quests and potential adventures they get lost, or even worse, they feel choices they make have no impact on the world. This leads to a second point…

The story railroad ain’t so bad – Sometimes it isn’t too awful to pull out the story railroad. With a group, having players ride along from point A, to point B, to point C, can all get very tedious quickly. I think it’s a huge sin to have players get on the rails of a story. However with a single player this can be forgiven as the lack of clear direction on what to do next can be a little frustrating. It’s not something I would do all the time, but it is an option to fall back on when running a solo player game. Sometimes you really need to give the player a little direction and focus. Having sequential goals clearly lined up for a few adventures is not a bad way to DM (something I’d typically avoid with a full group).

There are no ‘bad’ choices – When that player makes a choice it is the DM’s responsibility to make sure it pushes the story forward. Setbacks are always an avenue for new opportunities (and quite possibly a chance to redeem the character in then end). In a group, the DM can really put them through the wringer if they go a poor route, primarily as the group made a collective decision to go that way. Making a bad decision with a solo party is amplified 10-fold.

Things can get extremely adversarial with a single player if every choice is considered a bonehead idea in the DM’s eyes. A DM has to let that go and run with it. Granted if a player continually pulls out a ‘I jump in the lava’ plan of action, you might have to throw in the towel and just kill the guy off (but if you are at that point, you’ve got bigger problems with your game). However, you have to put yourself in the player’s shoes. They have no one to bounce ideas off of. They are going completely on intuition what they feel is the right course of action. You have to adjust your play style to accommodate them and make sure that they feel the choices made aren’t ‘bad’ ones, just ones that lead to interesting consequences.

The player is the story – With a group sometimes the DM can get away with having a player or two not have a developed background. You can also allow those relationships with the NPCs ferment a little, to the point the player’s have a greater interest in helping them out when needed. Right from the get go with a single player you need to engage them. Just about everything needs to relate back to them somehow either drawing from old acquaintances to events from their past. They have to be the center point.

In a way, it helps move the action along. The DM has an easy time pulling the strings of the player. They know the people near and dear to the PC’s heart. The DM can find it an easy task to get the player moving in the direction needed. It can be a little self indulgent for the player having all this attention, however they have to be the focal point. If the player sees themselves as the driving force for the story, that their actions (or inaction) have consequences for future events, then you’ve got something that keeps the player engaged and having fun.

Next post I’ll go into some more practical advice along the lines of game mechanics for the single player party.

Likely the most succinct argument to keep playing 4E

WotC has recently put up a podcast of Acquisitions Inc. attempting to convert their 4E characters into a version compatible with DnDNext. A fairly decent way to promote the upcoming version and get players of 4E behind the latest edition being worked on. However, there is a short minute and a half (16:00 to 17:35) where Mike Krahulik brings up a question about needing to plunge into DnDnext.

“Like, I already felt like I could do with whatever I wanted with these rules. So I don’t understand why I need a new set of rules that I do with whatever I want with.”

It’s a straightforward question. The response is something I think the WotC staff feels wholeheartedly. They don’t want people to be marginalized for playing older editions, especially 4E. They want to make a very inclusive edition that can get everyone around the table. Yet, I still feel that trying to crank out another edition will mean pushing that product, and also mean trying to get as many players on board with it.

Support for 4E will likely evaporate. Players are going to have to decide to take the plunge with the new books or be lumped in the folks that are lovers of past editions. I am rather boggled why WotC is even bothering to release an new print version of 3.5 with DnDnext on the horizon. Especially as DnDnext is to be the great unifier of all editions.

So with one foot in developing a new game, and another shuffling around with releasing older rules and material, I wonder what role DnDnext will have on gamers tables. Will it be heralded as a new edition like 3.0 and 4E, or will it peter out like D&D Essentials?

Review: The Resistance

From Indie Boards and Cards, I would consider the Resistance as a somewhat heavier party game and a more structured version of Werewolf. 5-10 Players are members of an underground rebel group in some distopian future. Among them are several spies that are informers for the very government they are trying to topple. The object of the resistance is to successfully complete a series of missions, while the spies within the group are trying to stop them. The side with the most successes (in the spies case, failed missions) after 5 turns wins the game.

Each turn is split into 2 segments. The first is an open vote to determine which members will form a team to attempt a mission selected by a group leader. As a straight up majority vote, all players decide if it is a good team or not. If not, the next player acts as group leader suggesting a different team composition. This process keeps going until a team is decided.

After the team is selected, each team member secretly selects a mission outcome card. Resistance members must select a mission success, while spies have the choice to select either a success or failure. If at least one card is a failure, then the entire mission fails. The following turns, this procedure continues five more times.

What comes about each round is a rather tense situation. Spies are determined randomly and in secret before the game starts. Like in Werewolf, the spies have an opportunity to see who else are spies for the game (a simple manner of all players closing their eyes and only the spies opening them). None the less, if multiple spies are chosen for a mission, they don’t have an opportunity to coordinate how they will vote. If 2 spies for a 3 player mission team both vote for it to fail, they’ve tipped their hand.

The end result is constant accusations and negotiations to decide who will make up the team, and which members are likely spies. No one will know who the spies are until the end of the game. The spy players are constantly in the game and actively influencing decisions for mission team members. However, they are the minority. So if the resistance members are confident they have identified the spies, they can effectively shut them out for participating on future missions.

The spy players however can help sow dissent among members, voting down mission teams. As a nuanced rule to the game, if there is so much distrust that a consensus can never be reached to decide a mission team, the spy players immediately win. It’s highly unlikely, but the spy players might be able to repeatedly swing other players into voting down proposed mission teams. This puts some pressure on the group to eventually give in and select a mission team, allowing the spies an opportunity to corrupt the team with a spy or two for that mission.

Aside from the basic game, there are also expansion cards. These cards allow players to do extra abilities and give the game a slight twist. Typically they either telegraph voting choices, or allow the player to secretly look at either voting or player cards (seeing if they are indeed spies or not).

The Good – It’s an enjoyable party game. It moves and scales well for larger groups. There is a lot of open negotiation and deception, with players not knowing who to trust until the end of the game giving each round a lot of fun tension. The game scales well and can accommodate several people (up to 10). The box is compact, allowing you to easily throw it in a backpack making for a great convention downtime game. The components and artwork are very pleasing too.

The Bad – With larger groups, and repeated plays, it may be difficult to remember who was on past mission teams. The game can get somewhat repetitive also, however the expansion cards that come with the game really add enough variety to change up play some. Also the number of players needed is a little steep at 5.

The Verdict – This is one of my favorite party games. While the play is a bit structured, and there can be some confusion on what cards are for what votes, after a single turn everyone gets it. This has been very successful for me with groups of non-gamers, and they have all had a lot of fun. The expansion cards add a nice twist to the game play to give it a bit more life. It occupies a small section of the game shelf and is a very reasonably priced game for the fun you get out of it. Definitely pick this one up for your collection.

Fiasco setup cards

I’ve always been a little intrigued by Fiasco but never quite got the gumption to pick it up. Catching the most recent Tabletop episode by Wil Wheaton definitely perked up my interest more. Once I get a few games under my belt I’ll likely throw up some thoughts. It’s taken me a few read throughs, but I’ve come to appreciate how elegant the game is.

Interestingly, getting folks from other cultures into the mix might be a bit of a challenge. My wife is a fan of many films by the Coen brothers and would likely get the vibe of Fiasco. However trying to describe your typical American small town suburb environments and inhabitants will likely garner some blank stares. I might have to tweak a playset to something with a hint of Asian trappings for it to be more recognizable if she wants in for a game.

One thing I wanted to do was speed up the setup a bit. I like the simplicity of using index cards, but I think having a few sheets of paper that could be filled in and quickly cut apart might be more serviceable. For some additional durability, I’ve been considering using self laminated sheets and dry erase markers too. I whipped up a PDF for some setup cards that can be printed out. There are 3 sheets, some name cards that can folded in half, a sheet for relationships (one too many for a standard game, but figured an extra wouldn’t hurt) and another covering a location, need, object, and 2 tilts. I also have some blank ones as wild cards for extra elements, just circle which one is represented (need, object, etc.).

Hope folks get some mileage out of them.

From WotC: Geek Ken, no board games for you

Folks have been gushing about Lords of Waterdeep. Stone Age just hasn’t been getting that much play time on my table, so I’ve considered investing into another worker placement game. It looks like there are some neat twists with Lords of Waterdeep, and the player interaction is a bit more complex than shutting out players from certain locations. Stone Age is a fun game. It has some minuses, but overall an enjoyable game with a neat theme. I just haven’t been playing it as much and Lords of Waterdeep is all sparkly.

So I eagerly placed an order from a fantastic board game store that ships internationally. I live in Asia. I’ve used this store for years. They are the cat’s pajamas for an online source of board games. Not going to name them as I don’t want any fallout with the email correspondence. I’ll call them ‘Awesome Board Game Store’ for this post. I eagerly placed an order for Lords of Waterdeep and a few other games. A couple of days later I get this…

Hi Geek Ken,
Unfortunately we are unable to send Wizards of the Coast products outside the United States so we’ll be unable to send Lords of Waterdeep on your order. I’m happy to replace it with another game, or just cancel it off the order all together. Please let me know what you’d like to do. Thanks.
— Awesome Board Game Store

Bummer. Now it kills me to do this, as I was really looking forward to having a bundle of board games. Taking one out makes the shipping expense a little harder to justify. I really hadn’t thought too much on getting an alternate. So I bite the bullet and cancel my order. My reply:

I have recently logged into my Awesome Board Game Store account and cancelled my order. My apologies for cancelling. If possible, could you please indicate why the board game could not be shipped internationally? I am curious as there are very few local retailers within [ASIAN COUNTRY] that handle Hasbro/WotC products exclusively.

Regards,
GK

I was curious why the sudden change in policy. I think I ordered Gamma World from this Awesome Board Game Store, along with dungeon tiles. This was sort of new for me. So I had prodded further to find out why. I get an interesting reply.

Hi Geek Ken,
We (and all US retailers) are unable to send any WotC items outside of the US as a condition for doing business with WotC. As they are a fairly large company they want to let their “local” businesses service their markets. I think most of this has to do with Magic but it’s a blanket condition. WotC is not very forgiving for businesses who break that agreement.
— Awesome Board Game Store

I sort of understand the policy for trying to bolster the brick and mortar store. But as international customers go, I’d bet most folks use these online stores as they are the only source for WotC products. I’m also figuring that it is to support Magic sales from local retailers, instead of people buying them in bulk from some online source. Maybe board games got lumped into this also.

Yet I get a bit worried. Is this for ‘all’ WotC products? What about the reprint editions for AD&D? Granted I could see WotC keeping huge book retailers like Amazon out of the loop, but I was counting on using places like Awesome Board Game Store to pick them up. I live in Asia. English is not the country’s native language. There really isn’t much demand for role playing games, especially enough for local retailers to spring forth. It’s just not in the culture. So being a bit worried, I prod further…

Completely understand. I am curious, does this include rulebooks from WotC? I am curious as some products such as the AD&D 1st Edition: Player’s Handbook is only available through smaller independent retailers as yourself (can’t order these books through Amazon or Barnes and Noble). If this is the case, please contact the sales representative you work through for WotC and express how restrictive their policy is. There are some customers (such as myself living as an expat in Asia) that have no other option but to purchase their products from international distributors like that of your store.

Regards,
GK

I get a response and I am floored by this.

Hi Geek Ken,
Yes it does. The rules apply to all WotC products including their out of print stuff, as we’ve specifically asked about that before.

Trust me we’d love nothing more than to sell WotC items to you, as you’re not the only non-US customer we’ve had to disappoint but their policy remains unchanged.

We can’t ship to any address outside the US.
— Awesome Board Game Store

WotC/Hasbro, you have a sliver of international customers that rely on online retailers for your products. Having this policy means I can’t buy any of your stuff set aside for local retailers, ever. Stuff like the new AD&D reprints, Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium, all of it is a no go for me. There simply are no local retailers here interested in carrying these products (foreign country, with its own language, means stuff printed in english is a low priority).

However, I guess customers like me simply are not part of the business model your company executes. Sucktastic.

[EDIT: For full transparency, I’ve removed the names of the people on these emails and truncated the last email where the representative from the Awesome Board Game Store offered a solution by shipping the products to an address in the United States, where that private individual could then send it as a parcel to me. As I said, they are an Awesome Board Game Store.]

In defense of skills and training

I am a fan of skills in RPGs. More importantly, I’m a fan of being able to increase skill abilities as a part of character progression.

DnDnext is having skills take the backseat somewhat to primarily focus on ability scores. Skills are there, but associated with specific backgrounds, or tagged bonuses using certain equipment. I appreciate the simplicity of that concept. How high you can jump, how quickly you can diffuse a tense situation, or how well you can follow a trail in the woods, all of it primarily depends on the PC ability scores. It’s a very convenient way to express what situations a player can expect they will excel, or do poorly, in.

Yet, I like that added layer of training for particular skills to that concept. Yes, how quickly you can climb might well be determined on your strength, but having training and experience in athletics will give you an edge. I particularly like how 4E added a huge bonus from skill training that would nearly equal a max ability score bonus of the same skill (or exceed it). However having training and a high key ability bonus for particular skills would just about trivialize all but the most difficult skill checks.

One thing I didn’t like was the continual level bonus players got with skills in 4E. For my next game, I’m planning on throwing that out and just keep DC values at first level for everything. To me it was sort of silly to keep adding bonuses to skills when the DC values also went up proportionally. However I admit there was a concept there that never quite got much traction.

Given skill challenges and DC values were based on the level of players, I always felt relative level could have been a factor for determining DC values. Epic and paragon tiers had this somewhat for certain skills, where each respective tier would bump up DC values for stuff like knowledge checks. Yet the level bonus was ever really tweaked much. It all fell upon whether it was an easy, moderate, or hard check. However sometimes I think relative level might have added another gradient in resolving skill checks.

I could easily see a 1st level PC having a more difficult time interacting with lower-tier nobility compared to a mid-heroic PC. With both DC values based on the same difficult check, I could pick a single DC value for a level 4 NPC. That mid-heroic PC might likely have as much renown and recognition as the trivial lord, so their level bonus would come into play. Instead it seems that idea just never cemented and 4E fell back on using just the 3 types of DC values that continually shifted as the player leveled up.

Still with some of these shortfalls, I like the idea of skills. I think it gives players a way to further customize their character. I particularly liked how 4E allowed players to learn new skills through feats. Want to gain more training in religion? Just pick up a skill training feat. In the end if I wanted to play a fighter that was very educated and a learned scholar, I could do so getting training in select skills (or picking up feats to do so). While my PC might not be on par with that wizard’s trained knowledge of history, I could certainly pull my mental weight if needed. Having skills instead primarily based on ability scores, without a bonus due to skill training, sort of takes away that flexibility.

So I am a fan of skills. I’m a fan of being able to increase proficiency with them (or at least be able to pick up new skills). 4E wasn’t too bad handling skills. Yet, I sort of liked how 3.5 allowed for continual skill progression (not a fan of the expanded skill lists though and found it almost too specific for skill checks). I’ve been thinking of adding a flat bonus to trained skills every 4 levels as a house rule for my next game (ditching the continual level bonus in the rules). While I appreciate the trimmed down resolution of tasks based on ability scores in DnDnext, I sort miss having that skill list.