Which is better /tg/? A system where you have 24 skills and

The prior, allows for finer optimization of the build.

skill ranks are for fags

>>54349872
Depends on the skills. Even if the overall math is the same, having to put points into Run/Swim/Jump, instead of "athletics" will feel pretty bad, but if there's not a lot of overlap between the 24 skills, it allows finer granularity and customization.

>>54349872
The former for a heavier game, as it allows for fine detail in your abilities, and the latter for a simpler game where you don't want to bother with that much detail.

>>54349872
Depends on the setting, the rest of the system and the skills.

>>54349986
>Depends on the setting
Can't you please fuck off?

>>54349872
The latter, less of a pain in the ass. It mostly depends on how those skills impact resolution, and what your starting xp is.

>>54349999
Why?

>>54350096
It's a stupid fucking meme that barely has anything to do with the premise of the thread.

>>54350096
It's a passive aggressive non-answer only used by the utmost faggots.

>>54350137
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?

>>54349999
>>54350137
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, anon. 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.

>>54350181
>>54350289
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.

>>54350610
And we're saying that this question cannot be answered without context.

>>54350781
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.

>>54349872
A system with only 8 skills, each rank requiring 1 EXP and EXP gain reduced to a third.

>>54350863
>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

>>54350863
at that point we're just arguing over if people like chocolate or vanilla more

>>54349898
rude

>>54351093
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.

>>54351045
>Sure. I know which one I'd prefer in any given context.
They why not fucking say it then?

>>54351179
Because there is no context given.

>>54351162
Yes

>>54349872
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: http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/overchoice-mktsci.pdf

>>54350137
>its a stupid fucking meme
You are autistic, anon.

File: Open Legend Attributes.png (22KB, 388x672px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 388x672px

>>54349872

>>54351220
>You are autistic, anon.
At least I can make a decision without a fucking primer like >>54351187 and >>54351191

>>54351265
elaborate how this works

>>54351283
Then you are also a dummy, anon. You would be a bad commander.

>>54351217
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.

>>54351299
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."

>>54351350
The shittiest one are also the ones that make snap decisions and then everyone dies.

>>54351422
Yet at the same time, doing something is marginally better than doing nothing.

>>54351350
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?

>>54351350
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.

>>54351286
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.

>>54351479
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.

>>54351583
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.

>>54351554
I kinda like it

>>54351554
That sounds great! Where can I download it?

>>54351909
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?"

>>54351554
Do you have a .pdf?

>>54352092
In the setting, there might be illusions, Augmented Reality or ambient/endothermic flames from a common phenomenon or product.
Context is important.

>>54350610
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.

>>54351972
>>54352083
>>54352116
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.

>>54352254
read
>>54352092
>situations where that isn't the case are the exception, not the rule.

File: Quality Post.jpg (30KB, 590x436px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 590x436px

>>54352092
>>54352254
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.

>>54351583
>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".

File: faggot.png (436KB, 757x310px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 757x310px

>>54352280

>>54349872
8

>>54352501
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.

>>54352092
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.

>>54352789
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.

>>54352789
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.

>>54353570
If you assume the best context possible for both, you also have to pick both.

File: (you).jpg (5KB, 234x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 234x230px

>>54353853
We're through here.

>>54353172
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?

>>54353980
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.

>>54354121
Thank you for offering an actual opinion.

>>54349872
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.

>>54354163
"The question in its current form is pointless" is an actual opinion, too.

>>54349872
I prefer simplicity, so b.

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

>>54354163
He literally said It depends on the context, he is right.

>>54354255
He literally said it depends on the group.

>>54354276
You mean metaphorically, right?

learn2english

>>54354293
You mean >>54354255, right?

learn2quote

>>54353570
>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?

>>54353998
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 >>54352272 first.

ITT: Terminal Autism

>>54357410
Welcome to /tg/

>>54357547
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?

>>54357755
it's the summer

Strawpoll up!

http://www.strawpoll.me/13452974
http://www.strawpoll.me/13452974
http://www.strawpoll.me/13452974
http://www.strawpoll.me/13452974
http://www.strawpoll.me/13452974

>>54357862
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.

>>54359534
>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!

File: 1487233373587.png (80KB, 211x244px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 211x244px

>>54359534
>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.

>>54360120
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.

File: 1487233586347.jpg (22KB, 441x327px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 441x327px

>>54360263
>I literally cannot have an opinion

>>54360281
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.

>>54360393
>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.

>>54360430
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".

>>54360454
>No, you must choose which one is better.
I just did.

>>54349999
That also depends on the setting anon. Specifically the setting of the mood.

>>54360478
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.

>>54360521
>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.

>>54359567
>>54360120
>>54360281
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?

>>54360553
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.

>>54360647
Yet in the end, you're the one stuck holding a pile of shit.

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

>>54351471

Not if that something is really, really stupid.

>>54360726
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?

>>54360704

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

>>54360744
1. It's dumber when you make things even worse.
2. If.

>>54351283
Making a decision with no information given is a bad idea, anon.

>>54360704
What you you mean by that? I'm holding both. You don't get anything.

File: 43.png (12KB, 515x235px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 515x235px

>>54360744
>Also, if it works, you can't really call it stupid now can you?

>>54360749
What part of this entire exchange was ever clever in the first place?
>>54360801
>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?

>>54360763
The thing is, the chance for making things worse is still less likely than just letting things go to hell without doing anything.

You always miss the shots you don't take after all.
>>54360832
Yet at the same time, you only need to succeed once.

>>54357755
There's more genuine discussion going on in this thread than there would be if it were just people bickering about OP's two options, since each person would be arguing from a different imagined yet arbitrary context.

>>54360839
I have no information, so I have no reason to think either option is BETTER.
Sure, I *could* pick one at random, but OP asked which is BETTER, and I don't know that.
Please respond to this: >>54360596

>>54360800
What's the worst thing that could happen if you chose either option in the OP?

>>54360281
>ignoring the context and only focusing on one part of his sentence
This is rich.

>>54360877
Are you the autist? Because if you aren't then whoo-boy, your standards are low as fuck.

File: 1448486357258.jpg (191KB, 970x617px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 970x617px

>>54360896
>He says, when the autist is hung up on OP asking which option was BETTER, rather than choosing an option like a normal person.

>>54360887
Nothing will happen, none of these posts matter because there's no actual information with which to form opinions and arguments around. Whether or not more people side with option A over B, or vice versa, is literally equivalent to OP flipping coin.
So this thread is completely worthless and OP should just flip a coin.
OR we can some context and start an actual discussion.

>>54360944
>Nothing will happen
Cool, now that we have that out the way, just pick something.

I am personally a big fan of the former, but I was raised on 3e DND.

>>54360904
>the autist
What autist?

>>54360925
Seflies should be posted in /soc/.

>>54360956
Why would I pick something? There is no value to picking one of the two options, not even the intellectual value of comparing and discussing any opinion with other anons, because it's an entirely arbitrary decision. I could flip a coin for you, but why do you need me to do that for you?

>>54361016
>What autist?
You, you indecisive moron.

>>54361091
I'm not going to sit here and explain the grammar conventions of the english language to a moron. Consider this my last reply considering you refuse to give this thread any meaning. If you're too poor to flip a coin to make your decision, I'm sure a corner store nearby will have free pennies you can take.

File: 1437641347673.jpg (51KB, 555x344px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 555x344px

>>54361126
>Consider this my last reply considering you refuse to give this thread any meaning.
>Shits himself over making a decision based off of a single word in the OP.
>Believes that he is making a viable contribution to the thread.

>>54361091
>>54361192
By the way, that wasn't the same "autist", there are at least two of us in this thread arguing that OP's question needs context.

If it will make you feel better, I can make the assumption that the unknown hypothetical game system in OP's question is similar to D&D, in which case 8 skills is definitely not enough, so I would prefer the 24 skill option of the only two options given. But that is a massive assumption to make, and my opinion might change later if I have additional information.

>>54361577
>After sperging out for hours, he finally makes a decision.
Now was that so hard?

>>54361620
Yes, it was, because I had to make a massive assumption that is likely incorrect, which means my decision is useless to OP for the purpose of designing a game.
I have failed to determine WHICH IS BETTER, only which I would personally prefer in a single hypothetical context which may or may not be the context of OP's game, so it is equivalent to flipping a coin. Why do you need me to flip a coin for you?

File: shrug(1).jpg (62KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x334px

>>54361755
>Yes, it was
Oh well, thanks for your contribution. You can leave now if you want.

>>54361781
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?

>>54361808
You're still here?

>>54361818
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?

>>54361828
How did you post a duplicate without it being marked as spam?

>>54361842
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?

>>54361896
Any particular reason why you're so pissy?

>>54362022
Now look who's taking forever to answer a simple question!

>>54349872

I mean, im not a big fan of "this costs x exp", im quickly becoming more and more partial to systems with simplistic character creation, but the first one is objectively better. Or would you rather have fletching, armourer, and blacksmith all be the same skill? How about Chemistry, Physics and Biology all be Science with a half dozen other functions besodes? If you're gonna do granular character creation, you can't go halfway, and even the basic character creation i love tends to split up skills pretty thoroughly, you just don't get many of them.

>>54362180
Do you need to take a nap or something?

>>54362248
Personally, I don't really mind when a game puts multiple things under the same skill provided most of the skills that I receive all have reasons why you'd want to use them multiple times throughout the campaign.

Doesn't matter if there's a distinction between Chemistry, Physics, and Biology when Physics is the only skill that you're actually using throughout the rest of the campaign while everything else is so situational that you can't even justify spending the points to be good at them.

However, if Science is a skill and I have access to all three of those things, now I'm able to not only expand my character's repertoire of abilities but now, I have more points to spend on other skills.

Or at least, that's how I see it.

>>54349872
That depends on what you want from the system.

>>54362249
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?
JUST. PICK. ONE.

>>54362470
Do you need a diaper change?

>>54362485
Why do you keep insulting me instead of answering a simple question? Could it be that you don't know?

>>54362660
I'm insulting you because after sperging out for over 12 hours, you finally give us your opinion and are now refusing to leave.

I could answer your question, but I'd rather make fun of you while seeing how long it takes for you to finally fuck off.

>>54362740
>you finally give us your opinion
But I did not. I never said WHICH IS BETTER, full stop, no context. I could not answer OP's question. The fact that you think I answered OP's question is disturbing.
Wait a second. Have YOU attempted to answer OP's question at all? You're not a hypocrite, are you?

if the system is made for gritty realistic games, more skills is usually better

if its meant to have a more action movie feel, 1 or 2 skills everyone needs and then a handful more for specific roles is better IMO

I prefer class-based progression.

>>54349872
>8 skills
>each rank costs 3EXP

Unless we know the value and other use EXP has in the systerm that know what the cost should be is impossible for us. 3 XP is the same as 3 million.

>>54362914
>But I did not.
Yes you did
>>54361577
>I would prefer the 24 skill option of the only two options given
I don't know why you're sperging out so much over the wording of the OP (aside from being low-functioning autistic).

File: 1488106554657.jpg (38KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x375px

>>54363640
>3 XP is the same as 3 million.
Man, we're getting all the sub-70 IQ troglodytes today.

>>54365231
I said:
>I can make the assumption that the unknown hypothetical game system in OP's question is similar to D&D, in which case 8 skills is definitely not enough, so I would prefer the 24 skill option of the only two options given.
>But that is a massive assumption to make, and my opinion might change later if I have additional information.

OP said:
>Which is better /tg/?
>A system where you have 24 skills and each rank costs 1 EXP or a system where you only have 8 skills but each rank costs 3 EXP?

OP did not say:
>Which WOULD YOU PREFER IN A GAME SIMILAR TO D&D?
>A system where you have 24 skills and each rank costs 1 EXP or a system where you only have 8 skills but each rank costs 3 EXP?

The opinion I gave is ONLY applicable IF the game being discussed is similar to D&D, which we don't know, because OP did not say it was similar to D&D.
I have failed to determine WHICH IS BETTER objectively in the unknown context OP wants to use.

And I'm still waiting for YOUR answer to OP's question. WHICH IS BETTER?

>>54366656
If characters gain 3 million XP for defeating the weakest level 1 goblin equivalent, and every listed XP reward and cost is a multiple of 1 million, then yes, 3 XP is the same as 3 million for all we know. XP is an abstraction that does not correspond 1:1 with anything quantifiable in real life and has vastly different value in different games.
OP did not provide context, so the only honest answer is "I don't know", and if you want a dishonest answer you can just flip a coin instead. Why do you need me to flip a coin for you?

>>54349872
I fucking hate systems with anywhere close to 24 (or god forbid more) skills so that's immediately out of the question. Nobody needs rolls to determine whether my adventurer or god-entity or superhero is proficient at a non-retard level, unless maybe I've gotten some character-disadvantage to represent that he or she is supposed to have trouble with basic fucking tasks like climbing a rope.

If you can come up with 24 skills without resorting to niche shit like "sailing", "tying knots", or "animal husbandry" then be my guest.
but in my experience fewer skills would make for a smoother experience, experience allocation be damned.

If you rephrase the question to be like "9 skills at 1 xp or 3 skills at 3 exp?" then I'd lean toward the former only because 3 skills is probably so reductive that every skill could be argued as applicable to any action.

File: 1485496172047.jpg (54KB, 360x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 360x500px

>>54366696
>Wah, don't take my opinion out of context.
>Muh exact wording.
>Muh autism.
How did you get back on the internet without your handler finding out?

>>54366784
>It's the autist
Oh okay, so no more. We already know that you need help going to the bathroom.

>>54351217
please demonstrate that the findings of this study can be transfered to skill selection in RPGs. oh, you can't? then fuck off.

>>54350181
>>54349986

It kinda doesn't. The important variable is how crunchy or not the designer wants the game to be.

People are right though in that there's not much criteria by which to give a good answer here. Need more context.

You do realize there's more than one "autist" in this thread arguing that OP's question is pointlessly vague and both options can be better depending on context, right?

I've yet to see a real argument for why OP's question *isn't* pointlessly vague or why both options *can't* be better depending on context. It seems like an indefensible position.

This is literally a skub thread, right down to the opinionated faggots demanding that the people without an opinion form one right now.

>>54370429
>You do realize there's more than one "autist" in this thread arguing that OP's question is pointlessly vague and both options can be better depending on context, right?
I don't think anyone ITT is surprised to find multiple autists on /tg/ anon.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if OP left after the thread got derailed by autism and faggotry.

>>54371986
This, but at least there are people who realize that, and some of the shitlords will only be pretending to be retarded for (you) points.

>>54349872
8 skills that only cost 1EXP

>>54368155
>please demonstrate that the findings of this study can be transfered to skill selection in RPGs.
The findings of that study can be applied to practically anything where you ask people to make a decision out of multiple options.

It's the same reason why most sandbox campaigns flounder under their own weight in less than three session, when people are told that they can do anything, they end up locking up and choosing nothing because they want to choose everything, but can't.

>>54349872
If you're doing a universal sure system, the former. Since you can easily add or remove skills that aren't useful to a setting like falconry vs use computer.

For a genre specific system: fuck it those are terrible.

>>54371986
>Are you pro-skub or anti-skub?
>I have no idea what skub is. Perhaps you could tell me about it.
>JUST PICK ONE REEEEEEEEEEE