These rolls came up a lot when I was trying to tame a starving wild tiger we encountered. That tiger, as we found out, was outstandingly dumb, but I miraculously still succeeded. I made it a companion using the game rules, but logic rolls will still come up for it if I’m not nearby my tiger, which will probably happen quite a bit. My extraordinary powers are all in my transformation, but that form will scare people who see it, so i cant use it in public willy nilly. And ofc my tiger is a tiger, again have to be careful to not freak people out, so I haven’t really been able to have it with us much. We’ve mostly just used her as a human cadaver waste disposal bin.
I feel like I have seen the point you make in the line “Programmers and trap smiths should have creation” is a problem many people have in the system being that extraordinary abilities are meant to be exceptional. A mundane programmer or trap smith would just have logic or learning, probably both, and an ordinary doctor would have the same. The extraordinary abilities are meant to be unique things, An example of which being in one of my Open Legend games a player gave themselves five creation from chargen and then said they were not meant to be a healer type. I questioned why they went so hard into creation as that is the type of stuff its grossly associated with, and they responded because my character is a painter and I thought they should be good at it. IMO that would be presence if that is not a super thing about you. Someone who uses paintings as magic to alter reality would be into creation, and a talented painter would be into presence.
As for the others, they have been touched on enough I think but a sentence for each as to my two cents on them.
2nd: Sleuths can choose to have logic or not based on the style of sleuth they want to play.
3rd: This is your personal preference as a gm if think the player’s wit should limit their character’s wit.
4th: Military geniuses work on their tactics but building their logic skills.
You’re completely right there. Extraordinary Attributes do not have to be magic, but they do have to be skills that aren’t just ramped-up versions of things anyone can do.
Learning and Logic overlap quite a bit, aren’t they? It seems (both from mechanical and common sense perspectives) that, if it can be achieved through Logic, it also can be achieved through Learning, and vice versa.
What I’m trying to say is, Logic seems a bit redundant. Or Learning. One can replace another, from where I’m standing, in almost any situation. So why have both? Sure, I can make a smart, but uneducated character. Which should be able to figure out almost anything an educated character would be able to. On the other hand, if I’m making educated character, I must make him somewhat logical, otherwise it makes no sense - one requires high cognitive ability ro reach higher strands of learning. So it seems that a smart, but uneducated character is almost just as good as educated character, but without equally large point investment. Seems unbalanced to me.
Attribute scores don’t necessarily represent your character’s absolute ability in that area, but how good they are at applying it under pressure. A character can be smart enough to have gotten a top tier education and have a really high Learning, but they can’t solve a puzzle under pressure so have zero Logic.
I’ve seen this argument a lot, and I honestly don’t get it. Sure, given time and resources a logical character can work out a lot, but given time and resources you don’t make the roll in OL. “Every roll matters” and if they have the time to do the research then you just assume that most characters would eventually succeed.
Say that you come across an obscure artifact in some ruins:
Logic you work out some basic information from the object and its surroundings then go do some research based on that. A few days pass as you hunt down old tomes and and work out which experts to question, but eventually you puzzle out exactly what it is.
Learning you already know what it is. As soon as you pick it up you recall the research you’ve previously done. You know that it would be considered sacred to the church in a neighbouring country, and you could sell it to them for a high price. You pocket it and move on.
Alternatively, you meet a local noble and it would be helpful to know who they’re related to; same difference between hours spent tracking down family trees (or risking offense by directly asking) or 30 seconds racking your brain to remember.
You’re given a complex and expensive technological device to gather data on a newly discovered planet; you could spend a bit of time playing with it to logically determine the control scheme, and risk breaking it, or you could just remember having used a similar device before in your lab.
Okay then. So Logic is only useful when a character is under some kind of pressure, right? Because, without pressure and given enough time, any character is able to figure anything out, without a roll? If so, then Logic is very situational. Leraning seems way better - you just know stuff, no need to puzzle it out.
Suppose I’ve stumbled across some puzzle-door in some ruins. If I have Learning, I can roll and, if successful, say “Aha! I’ve read about this culture’s peculiar puzzle-doors!”, and just know how to solve the puzzle. If I wanted to use Logic, I would either have to roll to same effect (if I was pursued by enemies, for example), or I could just spend some time studying the door and solve it without a roll… which means I could have had a very low Logic score, and it wouldn’t matter because there would be no roll.
Now Learning seems way more appealing than Logic. But regardless, I see no reason for having two stats which function very similarly. Why not just have Intelligence? It’s an ability to process (Logic) and store (Learning) information.
Professor Nerlinga has studied the sciences for many years, spending time in labs and libraries, lectures and lessons. He has a VERY firm grasp on WHY his radiator works, but this afternoon on the way home, something causes his car to overheat. He could spend DAYS or WEEKS using his LEARNING attribute to figure out how to get his car going again, but he doesn’t. Instead, he takes it to his mechanic, Ciglo.
Ciglo didn’t go to school to be a mechanic. He just started tinkering and the he found that the parts just fit together in a way that made sense. Even if he didn’t have the part he needed, he could find a way to patch things up and get them running again. He may not understand all the details about heat transfer or differential pressure, but he knows how to get the professor’s car back into running shape after about 25 seconds of looking at it and 3 minutes work.
Not quite, you don’t make a roll for any attribute if you have the time and resources to work on it. Also, there’s almost always some kind of pressure in a normal campaign. If you’re in a dungeon then you can’t simply pop back to town to visit the library: there’s goblins in your way, and the blacksmiths daughter probably won’t survive another day in captivity.
Your example with the puzzle doors only works if it’s something that you could have already known about. For an ancient culture, sure; it would be a higher CR with Learning than Logic if it’s a more obscure culture though. If you’re creeping through the evil mastermind’s base, then you have literally no way of knowing about her devious puzzle locks until you find them so Learning is of no use to you whatsoever.
As for why we don’t just have “Intelligence”, for the same reason there isn’t just “Charisma” and we don’t replace all the Extraordinary Attributes with one “Extraordinary” stat. They’re fundamentally different ways of achieving different things. We have to draw the line somewhere, or you just end up with one single attribute that’s the same for all characters (which some systems do, if that’s what you want out of your game).
This would be a good example, if it applied better to the game. It doesn’t. If we were talking about a reality-simulating game, we would be talking about GURPS. We’re not. And in this particular game, the examples made by SamWilby apply. Which means that Learning and Logic can accomplish same things, but with different time investment/roll requirements.
Also, your example conflates a mechanic’s skill with Logic, when in reality it’s also Learning. Both professor and mechanic are learned individuals, but they’ve studies different fields. One is also self-taught, when the other is shcool-taught. They both, however, are learned individuals.
I think combining Logic and Learning into one attribute would also be prudent from the game design perspective. Making redundant entities clutters up the system. Note how other attributes are not raising this kind of discussion. Agility is not being confused with Might, Perception is not being replaced by Will. And yet Logic and Learning are mutually replaceable and very much alike, confusingly so, despite the fact that they can, sometimes, be different. They are not different enough to justify having them both. It’s like having “Spot” and “Search” checks in 3,5 D&D. They are different, but not different enough, and thank god they have been combined into one in later editions.
They aren’t though. You can’t logically determine who the King’s daughter is. You can’t make a Learning roll to design a tricksy trap to guard your doorway. They were split up in OL because they’re different things in the real world as well as in the game.
You’re welcome to combine them in your own games, but you’re also welcome to combine everything down to Physical, Mental, Social and Extraordinary if you like. That’s more house ruke than a change to the Core Rules though.
But that’s exactly it - Logic and Learning don’t seem to be so “fundamentally” different! Protection and Entropy are different, Deception and Presence are different. Logic and Learning? These are very, very close. To the point where it makes more sense to just roll them into one. It simplifies and streamlines things, at least, that’s how I see it. I don’t think that would break the game of anything.
And, please, there’s no need to argue against something I haven’t said. No, I don’t want a game with all attributes rolled into “one single attribute that’s the same for all characters”, nor do I propose doing something like this in OL. That’s awfully looks like a strawman.
You’re misunderstanding my point. I’m not saying that you’ve suggested that, I’m saying that it’s possible. The separation of attributes is a sliding scale, you’re suggesting that we move it a little closer to that end (which is certainly valid! But, like I said, it’s a house rule) and all I’m trying to say if that you should acknowledge that it’s a scale.
At one end, you can have all attributes rolled into one. This is perfectly fine, and some games run really well using this method (I’m a huge fan of “All out of Bubblegum” for one shots). On the other end, you have individual stats for anything the character can do. This is more simulationist, and some players love that granularity. OL has planted its flag somewhere in the middle, Brian Feister decided that there was enough difference between knowing something and being able to work something out that they should be different Attributes, and most players of this system agree. He also decided that being persuasive, lying, and public speaking were different enough to split up Charisma. All in all, he wanted a bit more customisation for characters in this system. PCs in OL are perfectly allowed to know a lot but be dumb as bricks, or just the opposite.
You can shift the system a little more towards your own preference for your own games, but you can’t really argue with what the game does by default. That’s a little like going: “Why use a d20? A d12 gives you less variance and makes your ability more predictable”. Entirely valid, and you can always change that yourself, but also entirely a matter of opinion.
This is what OL decided to do, and it works for a lot of people. If it doesn’t work for you, then that’s what house rules are for (and it’s super easy for you to change yourself), but don’t try and tell everyone else that their fun is wrong.
Again, I wasn’t telling anyone how to have their fun. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I agree with your other points. I’m not a fan of house rules, but I might make an exception in this case. Then again, it would only be a worthwhile endeavor if the majority of people at the table felt the same way. Otherwise, why bother?
Apologies, I know you weren’t telling people not to have fun, but context is important. The thread you’re commenting on, and the tone of your post, make it seem like you’re suggesting a change to the Core Rules. In that context, it seems an awful lot like you’re telling everyone that they game they like is wrong, and therefore them enjoying it as it is is wrong. That may not be what you meant, but it’s what it seemed like to an outside observer.
You’re of course right that you should discuss house rules with your table. Homebrew is encouraged in OL, but often not necessary if it works fine with no changes. Best of luck with your games, and do come back here if you have any questions about how to make it work. I may not think your change is necessary, but I and many others in the community would be happy to help you with it if you can explain what you want to achieve.
If I can add my two cents, I find myself more on @Arcane_Feline’s side.
Even though I do consider knowing something and figuring something out two completely different things, I find the knowledge feat to be a better way to express a character’s knowledge on a topic.
Then again, as @SamWilby argued, it’s easier to merge two stats if you and your party agree on it than to create a separate one. We could have the same argument about persuasion and deception. I consider them similar enough to be the same thing, but different enough in flavour to see someone prefer them separated.
However, like with learning and logic, it seems to me you could easily merge them in your game without it impacting the game too much.
If anyone runs a campaign with an alternative stat structure, I’d love to hear how it went
I look at Logic as problem solving while Learning is accumulated knowledge. Someone with a high Learning can recall a lot of facts, but it doesn’t follow that they can apply those facts to make inferences. Doing that takes Logic.
@Bounty One issue I can see with using the Knowledge feat to express a character’s knowledge on a topic is that it eliminates the possibility of making an action roll to assess whether a character recalls a fact. I think it works better for specializations, especially professional ones.
It doesn’t remove rolls actually, if the CR of the check is higher than your automatic success level from the feat, then the feat gives you a temporary score to use to roll, though still only for your specific area.
I do agree that it works better for specialisations though. A character with knowledge broader than one or two topics is better served by getting points in Learning and then self-limiting by not rolling if it’s outside the boundaries of what they would know.