Which is better Veeky Forums?

It's a passive aggressive non-answer only used by the utmost faggots.

Are you trying to say that the intended setting of a system has nothing to do with the skills available to characters and their number?

But he's right. A designer always needs to make choices. He must pick which skills exist in the system, depending on how often they will be used. If you pick 24 skills for your system you prioritize certain activities over others.

There is no way around it, user. If there's a separate skill for hacking vs. general tech usage, hacking's going to be a fairly decent part of what happens in the campaign (and if it isn't... that's a potential trap option). The more skills you have, the more choices you have to make, as a designer, about what kind of setting your system is most geared towards.

I'm saying that the point of the OP was whether or not one specific quantity of skills vs. poiny cost was better than the other, not a question of what those skills would represent.

You're basically missing the forest for the trees.

And we're saying that this question cannot be answered without context.

Do you really need context to choose a preference?

I'm guessing that you've played games that operated off of a similar premise before and know which one you'd prefer over the other.

A system with only 8 skills, each rank requiring 1 EXP and EXP gain reduced to a third.

>Do you really need context to choose a preference?
Of course.
>I'm guessing that you've played games that operated off of a similar premise before
What premise? There is no premise. That's exactly the issue.
>and know which one you'd prefer over the other.
Sure. I know which one I'd prefer in any given context.

24

at that point we're just arguing over if people like chocolate or vanilla more

rude

Do you need context for that decision too?

If you need to ask, then you can safely go with either, your system's going to be utter shite regardless.

>Sure. I know which one I'd prefer in any given context.
They why not fucking say it then?

Because there is no context given.

Yes

Look up the concept of "overchoice". Too many options are likely to overwhelm anyone who isn't a veteran player. There have been studies on this. Amusingly, the study I remember used exactly 24 options to represent "too much choice"...

>In one particularly compelling demonstration of the phenomenon (Iyengar and Lepper 2000), consumers in an upscale grocery store encountered a tasting table on which were either 24 flavors of jam, or a subset of 6 of those flavors.
>While a slightly larger percentage of shoppers stopped to sample the jams when there were 24 as opposed to 6 flavors (60% vs. 40%), a much smaller percentage of those who sampled from the 24 jams went on to make a purchase (3% vs. 30%).
>As a result, while 1.8% (i.e., 3% of 60%) of shoppers who encountered 24 jams purchased, 12% who encountered 6 jams ended up purchasing.
More choice creates more curiosity but also makes decision making incredibly difficult. If you judge both systems by ease of player engagement, the 8-skill system wins by a landslide.

Choosing which skills to invest XP in is also vastly more difficult and takes much more effort than choosing, for example, between an 1d10 axe and an 1d8+1 sword. After all, you don't know how useful each skill will be in the actual game: they're impossible to compare side to side. Therefore a reasonable number of options will lessen the paralyzing impact of not being able to see the trade-offs.

Source: www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/overchoice-mktsci.pdf

>its a stupid fucking meme
You are autistic, user.

...

>You are autistic, user.
At least I can make a decision without a fucking primer like and

elaborate how this works

Then you are also a dummy, user. You would be a bad commander.

Except with skills in an RPG it's less like 24 types of jam and more 24 different spreads in general. You can cut off some of them by personal preference and necessity. You know you don't need to invest in athletics and intimidation if you're playing a shy, physically weak sort of character, as an example. What you say is true in a vacuum, but most people have some idea of what they want to play by the time they're picking skills.

Actually, the best commanders are the ones who can make snap decisions based off of limited knowledge and still get shit done.

There's nothing worse than asking the dude in charge a question, only for them to say "I don't know."

The shittiest one are also the ones that make snap decisions and then everyone dies.

Yet at the same time, doing something is marginally better than doing nothing.

There is a difference between limited knowledge and none at all.
A commander's decisions are informed by a wealth of contextual information produced by the world they inhabit.
The question in this case is more akin to
>You stand in a white void with nothing to be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt. Do you go left or right?

Well, it's a good thing we're on a message board and not in the middle of a battlefield, so you can take the time to explain yourself fully and properly.

To make a check you roll a d20 plus the dice, which are based on your rank in the attribute.
They're pretty broad, but the game is also pretty clear about how context dependent everything is: if your character's bad at a specific application of an attribute, they would have some amount of disadvantage on it if they could do it at all.

This is doubly true for "exceptional attributes": you're supposed to have an explicit idea about what your character's justification is for having it and what its limitations are. This screenshot is from a character who is normally very inaccurate but can throw out a dozen energy bolts in short order, so he's either going to attack at close range or use an area of effect attack.
And other characters with high Energy attributes might do general Evocation magic out of a spellbook, or throw precise lightning bolts at will.

With how it asks you to consider context and the way the rules can shape up based on that, Open Legend sort of reminds me of Mutants & Masterminds.

At the same time, people don't generally need to ask "how hot is it?" before deciding whether or not they want to stick their hand inside of an open flame yet somehow there exists people ITT who actually needs someone to clarify if the flames in front of them are, in fact, hot enough to where sticking your hand in is a bad idea.

I mean, even in settings where fire wasn't hot for whatever reason, you'd still assume that you'd be better off not touching it.

At the same time, choosing to touch an open flame could make sense in context. Perhaps behind that flame there's an object you want, or a person who needs your help.
If you have a reason to touch the flame, you would then want to know if your chance of survival is high, low or zero, and that knowledge will affect your choice.

I kinda like it

That sounds great! Where can I download it?

You're missing the point you blithering autist.

The point is, regardless of the situation, people will generally be hesitant to touch an open flame at all and situations where that isn't the case are the exception, not the rule.

And the reason why this is, is because people can generally recall experiences from their past where fire=hot=pain without having to ask stupid questions like "well how hot is the fire in front of me right now?"

Do you have a .pdf?

In the setting, there might be illusions, Augmented Reality or ambient/endothermic flames from a common phenomenon or product.
Context is important.

The answer depends a lot on both the setting and the system, though. Do you have a rules-light or rules-heavy system? Are there many ways to customize your characters, or is anyone with the same skills basically interchangeable? Is your setting a cinematic one where the science guy does science to things, or a more realistic campaign where splitting chemistry, biology, physics, and computer science apart makes more sense? Is it a modern game where people will lose verisimilitude if you make driving a car and flying a plane the same skill, or a fantasy setting where people can pretend sculpting and metalworking require the same skillset without issue?

All of these questions actually do matter when answering the question, because ultimately your skill system should fit your game.

The rulebook is free in webpage form on OpenLegendRPG.com, and there's a good digital character sheet/character builder at openlegend.heromuster.com/character.

read
>situations where that isn't the case are the exception, not the rule.

You're both retarded. How is touching a flame in-character like choosing how many skills to include in an RPG in any fucking way? It's like you're arguing what color the sky is to prove a point about how to write a good book. One of you is more of an idiot for it, but either way you're arguing something that doesn't fucking matter to the original point.

>people don't generally need to ask "how hot is it?" before deciding whether or not they want to stick their hand inside of an open flame
Because unlike the question asked in this thread, it's a decision with context. Everyone associates touching flames with pain and injury, more likely than not from personal experience.

>I mean, even in settings where fire wasn't hot for whatever reason, you'd still assume that you'd be better off not touching it.
No, why? You don't touch fire because it's hot. If it's not hot, it's only bright, and there's no inherent reason not to touch it. I mean, you're not afraid of touching the screen in front of you, right?
Of course, it would be different if that cold fire still consumed whatever it touched, because then the setting's inhabitants would still associate it with "don't touch".

...

8

They roped him and Ed Greenwood into designing a setting for the game as a promotional thing. They're not actually involved in the general design of the RPG itself.

And my point is, context is necessary to make meaningful decisions.
If the OP truly believed there was no wrong answer to the question "which is better", he would have simply flipped a coin instead of asking us.

It's a subjective issue not an objective one dumbass.

He's gauging taste. Coins don't have taste, they're plebs of the highest degree.

You're worse than a woman trying to decide where she wants to eat, just pick option A or option B and be done with already.

Assume the best possible context for both if that'd make it easier on you but please, for the love of all that is holy, JUST. PICK. SOMETHING.

If you assume the best context possible for both, you also have to pick both.

We're through here.

Even a subjective issue requires context, dumbass.

The decision right now is between two kinds of tasteless, odourless, colorless powder, one of which is slightly more granular than the other. How can you gauge taste from that?

If you assume the best possible context for A, then the obvious answer is A.
If you assume the best possible context for B, which cannot be the same as the one for A, then the obvious answer is B.
Now, if you assume the best possible context for both, you assume two different contexts and get two different answers.

Simple logic, really.

Depends on the group
Mine loves minimalism.

Thank you for offering an actual opinion.

What do the skills cover?

For all I know, five of the eight skills could revolve around cramming different-shaped objects up my arse, with the other three revolving around farting various genres of music.

"The question in its current form is pointless" is an actual opinion, too.

I prefer simplicity, so b.

Actually, either C, class system, or D, profession-based skill system

He literally said It depends on the context, he is right.

He literally said it depends on the group.

You mean metaphorically, right?

learn2english

You mean , right?

learn2quote

>but please, for the love of all that is holy, JUST. PICK. SOMETHING.
Why can't OP, who has all the relevant information and is likely going to do most of the playtesting, JUST. PICK. SOMETHING?

I agree with you, and I want to add to your analogy.
The tastes of those two powders being compared are not a good indicator of the intended taste of the finished product.
If one cake recipe requires baking soda, and another completely different recipe doesn't, you're not going to decide "which is better" by tasting a spoonful of pure baking soda. You need to keep in mind all the other ways the recipes are different and what kind of cake you intend to create.

Anyone who replies to this post, please reply to first.

ITT: Terminal Autism

Welcome to Veeky Forums

I remember when we turned troll threads into threads of genuine discussion.

Now we can't even answer a fucking question without the thread being derailed by memes and autism.

What happened to this place?

it's the summer

Strawpoll up!

strawpoll.me/13452974
strawpoll.me/13452974
strawpoll.me/13452974
strawpoll.me/13452974
strawpoll.me/13452974

Where's the "you can't know which is better without knowing anything else about the games" option?
If the one I pick is actually Racial Holy War with one rule changed, I don't mean to pick that.

>Where's the "you can't know which is better without knowing anything else about the games" option?
With you, in a dumpster.

Now fuck off!

>Getting hung up over stating your opinion on an anonymous imageboard where nobody knows who you are.
You'd probably starve to death if you got a gf (as if) and you had to decide where to eat.

I literally cannot have an opinion using the information provided. What part of that don't you understand?

OP's question is like making me choose a restaurant based ONLY on whether there's an even number or an odd number of tables in it.

>I literally cannot have an opinion

Yes, that's what I said.
Which is better, the object in the box in my left hand or the object in the box in my right hand?
You have no idea what they are, but you must tell me WHICH IS BETTER.
Not which one you are personally biased for.
Not which one you pick at random just to be done with it.
WHICH.
IS.
BETTER.

>Which is better, the object in the box in my left hand or the object in the box in my right hand?
Since this isn't a major decision and has no consequences one way or the other, I will choose right, because fuck it.

No, you must choose which one is better. Choosing at random is not choosing the better one.
OP said "which is better", not "which do YOOUUUUUU prefer".

>No, you must choose which one is better.
I just did.

That also depends on the setting user. Specifically the setting of the mood.

Okay, and why is it better, other than "because I said so" or "because fuck you"?
If the OP wanted a meaningless choice, he would have flipped a coin.

>Okay, and why is it better
The right hand is associated with divinity and is the most common hand for people to be dominant with.

There's a reason why when you look at pictures of deities across different cultures, they're usually holding up their right hand as opposed to their left.

Any single rule of a game system should be appropriate for the rest of the system, which in turn should be appropriate for the genre and tone of the campaign.
Do you agree with that statement? Or do you disagree with it?

Okay, so the object in the box in my right hand was a pile of shit, while the object in the box in my left hand was a gold brick. You made the choice in a vacuum so now you have unknowingly claimed that a pile of shit is BETTER than a gold brick.
I mean, you're free to think that, it's debatable, but your choice might have been different if you had known the contents of the boxes before choosing one.

Yet in the end, you're the one stuck holding a pile of shit.

But, y'know, you sure showed me, I guess?

Not if that something is really, really stupid.

No dumber than watching things go to shit and doing nothing to stop it.

Also, if it works, you can't really call it stupid now can you?

Not him, but did you really think that was clever?

1. It's dumber when you make things even worse.
2. If.

Making a decision with no information given is a bad idea, user.

What you you mean by that? I'm holding both. You don't get anything.

>Also, if it works, you can't really call it stupid now can you?

What part of this entire exchange was ever clever in the first place?
>What you you mean by that? I'm holding both.
Exactly, you're still holding a pile of shit though.
>You don't get anything.
I wasn't going to get anything regardless, hence "no real consequences."

Now can you please stop acting like an autist and pick something already?