If you're playing a game with GM-set target numbers for Skill rolls, then yes, charts like that are very useful.

I would read the Skills section of the rulebook once or twice to get a feel for how difficult, for example, a target number of 20 is vs 25. I'd then internalise the scale and be ready to GM a session. I wouldn't likely reference it in play though.

Quote from: Piestrio;747287I looked at 3.X's skill descriptions once and it have me eye cancer.

Me too. My solution was essentially to not read them.

Amazingly, it is possible to gm 3X without those descriptions.

Quote from: Bill;747391Amazingly, it is possible to gm 3X without those descriptions.

What I wish I could find out is how many people do just that. It just feels like the kind of rules bloat a lot of people say they want but in practice simply hand wave away to keep things moving... at least until they need a weapon to attack the GM's decision with, at which point the game gets sargassoed.

No, I never used them as written; just simplified to a set of DCs to roll against, largely chosen by my own judgment.

Quote from: languagegeek;747387I would read the Skills section of the rulebook once or twice to get a feel for how difficult, for example, a target number of 20 is vs 25. I'd then internalise the scale and be ready to GM a session. I wouldn't likely reference it in play though.

This is definitely the way to do it IMO. I guess if you use a GM's screen then a chart on the screen with sample DCs is ok to reference in play. But don't go trawling through the (eg) Pathfinder Core Rulebook in play, at least not unless a PC's life directly depends on it.

Eeeesh.  I'm with Bill, frankly.  I play a game widely smeared as being overcrunchy, and the simple retort is that no one frigging compels you to use all that crunch.  No one.

The GURPS climbing rules (for instance) are complex, though only about a quarter as wordy as that example.  I just assess ballpark modifiers.  Climbing a brick wall in dry weather with a knotted rope?  Sure, +4, why not.  Climbing a rock face in winter, without equipment, after dark, and a stiff crosswind?  You're pretty much boned.

Now sure, if a player wants to learn all the particulars of skills he uses, fine.  But he has to be able to articulate it exactly and fast, without referencing the book when it's his turn or screwing around.  I don't want him to start flipping pages when I call on him; I want him to be able to say "Yeah, I start climbing.  My total modifier, counting the equipment I'm using, the pitch of the wall and the weather conditions is -3, and if I make it, it'll take me about 30 seconds."  If he needs to reference it, he'd better have already done so.

Quote from: Ravenswing;748005Eeeesh.  I'm with Bill, frankly.  I play a game widely smeared as being overcrunchy, and the simple retort is that no one frigging compels you to use all that crunch.  No one.

I had a bit of an epiphany running full Pathfinder for children (first my son, then my son + friend's son & his parents) recently, using the Iconic pregens - the more I as GM handled all the rules, the easier it was. In fact it was really no harder than running AD&D. The pain in rules-heavy systems comes from GM-player interaction and worrying about rules compliance. If the players rely on the GM's adjudication, and the GM is using the rules for support rather than as something binding on him, the pain vanishes. The game runs smoothly and fun for everyone.

Now I want to try this same approach with an adult group of novice players. My worry is that I'll get one experienced gearhead guy in the group, but maybe requiring everyone to play an Iconic would stop that.

Quote from: Ravenswing;748005Eeeesh.  I'm with Bill, frankly.  I play a game widely smeared as being overcrunchy, and the simple retort is that no one frigging compels you to use all that crunch.  No one.

The GURPS climbing rules (for instance) are complex, though only about a quarter as wordy as that example.  I just assess ballpark modifiers.  Climbing a brick wall in dry weather with a knotted rope?  Sure, +4, why not.  Climbing a rock face in winter, without equipment, after dark, and a stiff crosswind?  You're pretty much boned.

Now sure, if a player wants to learn all the particulars of skills he uses, fine.  But he has to be able to articulate it exactly and fast, without referencing the book when it's his turn or screwing around.  I don't want him to start flipping pages when I call on him; I want him to be able to say "Yeah, I start climbing.  My total modifier, counting the equipment I'm using, the pitch of the wall and the weather conditions is -3, and if I make it, it'll take me about 30 seconds."  If he needs to reference it, he'd better have already done so.

"The Power of Crunch COMPELS YOU!!!"
"The Power of Crunch COMPELS YOU!!!"

I think you make a great point in that some people do seem compelled to use all the crunch.

Quote from: S'mon;748012If the players rely on the GM's adjudication, and the GM is using the rules for support rather than as something binding on him, the pain vanishes. The game runs smoothly and fun for everyone.

So, just like OD&D 40 years ago, then?  Gosh, what PROGRESS!!!

Quote from: Old Geezer;748117So, just like OD&D 40 years ago, then?  Gosh, what PROGRESS!!!

Yeah, exactly.

Quote from: Piestrio;747287I looked at 3.X's skill descriptions once and it have me eye cancer.

:rotfl:

I hate reading specific fiddly skill rules. Nothing else kills my interest in a game. If the rules were simple, I might be fine with it. It's not. If I desired to play by the book, I would have to look 3e D&D's climbing, jumping and other skills every time it comes up in play. Count me out.

Base rule with some modifiers for difficulty, seems fair enough to me.

I'd use that in D20.

The basic system is very good. Like others have said, when you have 20+ modifiers to a roll, then it's a bitch.

Just a flat -2 or -4 to all roll seems reasonable.