Rewriting Reality Part 4: Using Skills

[Ziegander]

I think getting ranks/proficiency in class skills for free gives players enough incentive to "just" purchase skill tricks from their class skills. Having to spend the very resource I would be spending on skill tricks to give myself access to a skill that I like and I think fits my character concept seems like a steep enough cost to be able to purchase "cross-class" skill tricks.

I say however much a skill trick costs, that's how much the next tier of proficiency in a skill should cost. I'm basically giving up 1 "trick point" to learn a skill better (admittedly not the most exciting thing) and unlock new skill tricks (admittedly really cool). :)

I'm thinking it should be playtested some definitely, but, for now anyway, the plan is to have class-skill skill tricks cost 2 skill points, while cross-class skill tricks cost 4 points. But I could certainly be persuaded to do elsewise. Thinking on it though, I just realized that, under the current rules, a cross-class skill can be obtained at "Novice tier" with just 1 skill point. So, perhaps I should edit the rules ever so slightly so that at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 class-skills automatically advance a tier, and so that cross-class skills cost 4 ranks per tier to advance. In that way, I could make the skill tricks all cost the same amount of skill points, whatever playtesting deemed appropriate.

Regarding moving on, I think this conversation is pretty thoroughly explored. I would not be opposed to reviewing it after it has more context from defined skills and/or an established environment and example adventures.

While there are still a few minor points that I think are worth mulling over, I tend to agree. We've got a pretty awesome model for the Aid action, courtesy of General Patton, and I think we've come up with a really great core for skill advancement and skill point investment. So, thanks a lot everyone, this has been a really awesome section to work through and design and discuss with all of you!

Speaking of moving forward, I had this to say about a consolidated skill list...

Speaking of a consolidated skill list, yes, I agree, I want a smaller set of skills with the aim that each skill is as important to players as the others. This is likely impossible to get perfect, but aiming for balance is best wherever possible.

Having said this...


...in the previous thread, I would like to stand by it and design the game in its entirety based around those principles. As such, while skills like Acrobatics and Athletics can make perfect sense in a game of just about any type, other skills such as Arcana only fit in certain types of games. So, what should the consolidated skill list look like?

... so, with that said, how would everyone feel about the following skill list:

Acrobatics (Agl), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), History (Int), Insight (Wis), Investigate (Int), Intimidate (Cha), Linguistics (Int), Melee Weapons (Dex), Nature (Wis), Perception (Wis), Ranged Weapons (Dex), Stealth (Agl), Streetwise (Wis), and Technology (Int)?

• Insight would be a combination of Handle Animal, Ride, Sense Motive, Wild Empathy and other ancillary concepts. It could perhaps be renamed Cunning (I feel like I want to go back and call the ability score Wisdom instead)?
  
• Investigate would be a combination of Gather Information, Search, and new tools to help a character be more of a detective. Tracking would fall under this as well.
  
• Linguistics is stuff like Decipher Script, Speak Language, translation, etc.
  
• Streetwise is kind of a combo of Knowledge (Architecture), Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nobility), and also things like haggling and possibly thievery/sleight of hand type stuff.
  
• Technology would be handled as a catch-all that would vary by setting for craft/profession type things as well as Use Device and Disable Device and other things like that. All settings ostensibly have some form of technology even if it's just "hit rocks together to make fire." This is the skill used to handle that sort of stuff, all the way up to, "operate the helm of a starship."

[eftexar]

I worry about this. I think you have consolidated the skills too much. Ride to me fits more in athletics and knowledge skills seem to bunched together. And Technology seems to broad.

If you have World of Darkness you should take a look at how it groups skills. I think it handled grouping them fairly well. It also had "sub-skills" where players could specialize in more specific functions. This could be a way of introducing a take 10 mechanic.

Give me a moment and I'll groups D&D skills in a similar pattern as nWoD.

[General Patton]

How about, as a way of further differentiating characters, you actually spend your skill points directly on skill tricks and then reference the chart (respecting the level limit) to determine your bonus to the skill and whether you have access to the additional uses that everyone gets at certain ranks? A Fighter spends 2 points on the Novice Perception trick "Signs of Hostility" to get +2 Initiative and reduced Flatfooted penalties from watching muscle twitches and following the enemies' gaze, but the Rogue spends his 2 points on "Dying Breathless" to hear when enemies have exhaled completely so they can't scream when Sneak Attacked. Different tricks, but they both have 2 points for the purpose of bonus and default abilities.

In essence, instead of first buying vertical advancement, and then getting horizontal advancement after further investment, you only buy horizontal and the total of how much you've got tells you the vertical.

[Zovc]

I'm still failing to see the purpose of skill points regarding vertical advancement in class skills. Why would a cleric not be as good at the Religion skill as he is experienced (his level)? Why does my cleric need to 'spend points' to do that? The reason I'm behind having "points" for skill tricks is because I think characters should be able to do diverse things with the skills they have. Anyways, I'm probably beating a dead horse--I've probably made my point clear enough already. We're supposed to be moving on!

--

I like General Patton's suggestions for "skill tricks" in that they are feat-like benefits rather than actions. They're also really cool. Perhaps this is your system's alternative to feats?

Regarding your consolidated skill list, I agree that things might be a little too consolidated. In a little bit, I'll look at your list with more scrutiny and try to think of things that don't obviously fit somewhere.

[Ziegander]

I'm still failing to see the purpose of skill points regarding vertical advancement in class skills. Why would a cleric not be as good at the Religion skill as he is experienced (his level)?

But the Cleric is as good at Religion as he is "experienced." Religion would be a class skill for the Cleric and as such it would automatically advance vertically. The Fighter on the other hand becomes automatically more and more proficient with Melee and Ranged Weapons, but must spend skill points to become good with the Religion skill.

The reason I'm behind having "points" for skill tricks is because I think characters should be able to do diverse things with the skills they have.

And they will be able to. Skill points will serve to buy skill tricks and to buy higher levels of proficiency for cross-class skills. The class skills automatically rank up to higher levels of proficiency with gains in class level. I think your confusion might be stemming from the fact that I'm planning to allow 3e-style multiclassing which makes this all a bit more wonky but still very easily workable.

I like General Patton's suggestions for "skill tricks" in that they are feat-like benefits rather than actions. They're also really cool. Perhaps this is your system's alternative to feats?

General Patton's idea is an interesting one. It shifts skill usage in a very different direction than what I was planning, and ultimately I'm not as confident in the math of it as I am of the system I'm currently proposing, but it's a cool and fresh approach that I think deserves to be playtested in the future.

Also, yes, I think skill tricks are going to be my systems version of feats. I may end up calling them Talents or Powers or something else, but, yeah, my skill tricks and d20s feats seem to occupy very similar conceptual space.

Regarding your consolidated skill list, I agree that things might be a little too consolidated. In a little bit, I'll look at your list with more scrutiny and try to think of things that don't obviously fit somewhere.

Okay. Something I do want to avoid is having too many skills spread out so far that characters feel spread too thin. I want characters to feel like they've always got a good variety of options and having too many different skills can bleed characters of their skill points. I think 3.5 had too many skills in general.

[eftexar]

Ziegander, what do you think of something like this for the skill list?

Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, and Tumble)
Athletics (Climb, Jump, Swim)
Commerce (Appraise, Barter)
Craft (Glass, Metal, Wood)
Deception (Bluff, Disguise)
Empathy (Handle Animal, Persuade, Seduction)
Handle (Drive, Fly, Ride)
Investigate (Examine, Gather Information, Search)
Larceny (Disable Device, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand)
Linguistics (Decipher Script, Forgery, Speak Language)
Melee Combat (unarmed, magic, weapon)
Nature Sense (Geography, Herbology, Survival, Track, Zoology)
Occult (Arcana, the Planes, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device)
Ranged Combat (unarmed, magic, thrown weapon, projectile weapon)
Perception (Listen, Spot)
Perform; taken individually, some skills can be used in place of perform
Research (Find Information, Puzzle Solving)
Science (Alchemy, Architecture, Medicine)
Social Sciences (History, Nobility and Royalty, Religion)
Stealth (Hide, Move Silently, Tail)
Streetwise (Black Market, Local Knowledge, Sense Motive)
Technology (Computer Use, Engineering/Trapmaking, Programming/Hacking)
Unnerve (Intimidate, Interrogation)

[Zovc]

Acrobatics and Athletics feel like they have a very awkward gray area. I totally feel the difference between them stylistically, but I don't know if it justifies separation. It is probably worthwhile having separate physical skills tied to strength and dexterity, though.

Again, I feel the difference between Insight and Investigate, but I'm wondering if it warrants separation.

Both of these can be shored up by clever and clear definitions, but I think we really need to examine the differences you want to have, and the similarities that create an "uncanny valley." A good first step, silly as it sounds, would be to use words that start with different letters. Not only is this going to make us have to get creative, but we are also likely to force ourselves to use more divergent words.

I feel like there should be some connection between Intimidate and Investigate (interrogation type stuff). Perhaps social skills could have skill tricks to assist Investigate checks?

Is Linguistics the "directory" for the old Diplomacy? Perhaps "Speechcraft", Diplomacy, or some other term would imply more than studying languages?

Streetwise seems like it's really encompassing, but I suppose it is all pretty interconnected in any given time period, and we just kind of take that for granted in this day and age.

Technology seems too broad, I agree. Not only is its name a little wonky to look at, but it really does everything. Perhaps a craftsmanship skill is in order? I feel like fine motor skills need their own category, and I feel like rogues should invest into it to be good at lock-picking and trap-dealing.

I wonder if Concentration needs to be represented at all. I was thinking it could be used for marching/making long treks in addition to keeping focus. A sort of "willpower" skill. Perhaps Constitution checks are good enough for that.

Regarding you wanting to change Cunning back to Wisdom, I like both words. I feel like cunning is a cooler word for it, but I also like the idea of every attribute starting with a different letter.

Oh! Regarding Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons:
Archery, [Melee/Dueling/Swordsmanship/Martial Arts], and Warfare. And maybe Leadership.

I understand Archery and Melee being separated, believe me. I would advocate separating battle awareness and control into its own category for a few reasons. Tangent incoming:

Spoiler

Show

I practice medieval combat fairly regularly. Used to be at least twice a week, lately it's only been once a week at best. Nevertheless, something I've learned fairly intimately is that skill as an individual fighter does not directly translate to fighting as a unit. As a matter of fact, in battles with teams, you can know as few as two or three attacks and kill all of your enemies with good teamwork.

Obviously, individual skill matters in combat, even in a large-scale battle. However, knowing how to position yourself to fight against multiple people and more importantly, how to position yourself to defend yourself (and your teammates) against multiple people is something you will never learn if you only practice dueling and sword techniques.

Every now and then, I'll go into battles unarmed (because I'm silly like that) and there's a running joke that I'm more scary when I'm unarmed than when I've got a weapon. Punches and kicks aren't legal, so it's not my Martial Arts or Melee Weapons anything like that that makes me so scary. It's because I am constantly threatening people with a grapple to the point where they can't forget about me. I'll act like I'm going to jump in on them in hopes of making them flinch. As soon as a person commits to defending themselves against me, they're open to my teammates. As soon as someone decides to pay attention to more well-equipped enemies, I'm grappling them and prying them open for a teammate.

Sure, what I described above is mostly flanking and teamwork, but it's combat prowess outside of Melee Weapons or Ranged Weapons. Maybe flanking how you want to represent that and be done with it, but I think it'd be interesting to have maneuvers dedicated to battlefield control that aren't directly tied to skill with a melee weapon or ranged weapon. :)

tl;dr, I tooted my horn in an attempt to advocate Warfare and/or Leadership as a skill in addition to Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons.

[General Patton]

General Patton's idea is an interesting one. It shifts skill usage in a very different direction than what I was planning, and ultimately I'm not as confident in the math of it as I am of the system I'm currently proposing, but it's a cool and fresh approach that I think deserves to be playtested in the future.

With regards to the math, you'd just use this slightly modified table.

{table=head]Level|Tricks Learned|Competence Modifier

N/A

|

0

|

+0

1-4

|

1-2

|

+2

5-8

|

3-4

|

+4

9-12

|

5-6

|

+6

13-16

|

7-8

|

+8

17-20

|

9-10

|

+10

[/table]

For class skills, you'd get to select tricks directly as you level instead of gaining ranks, and additional tricks would cost 1 point. Cross-class tricks would cost 2 points.

Though, now that I think about it, it might be simpler to just say that each skill trick you know increases your Competence bonus by +1, say that certain tasks require a certain Competence bonus to attempt them, and then cap the bonus at 1/2 level.

[Ziegander]

I'm high on the awesome steak and potatoes me and my girlfriend made and ate for dinner, so my brain is unfortunately not functioning at anything resembling a reasonable level to reply to your suggestions at this time. I'll try and get back to you all tomorrow.

[Seerow]

Ziegander, what do you think of something like this for the skill list?

Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, and Tumble)
Athletics (Climb, Jump, Swim)
Commerce (Appraise, Barter)
Craft (Glass, Metal, Wood)
Deception (Bluff, Disguise)
Empathy (Handle Animal, Persuade, Seduction)
Handle (Drive, Fly, Ride)
Investigate (Examine, Gather Information, Search)
Larceny (Disable Device, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand)
Linguistics (Decipher Script, Forgery, Speak Language)
Melee Combat (unarmed, magic, weapon)
Nature Sense (Geography, Herbology, Survival, Track, Zoology)
Occult (Arcana, the Planes, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device)
Ranged Combat (unarmed, magic, thrown weapon, projectile weapon)
Perception (Listen, Spot)
Perform; taken individually, some skills can be used in place of perform
Research (Find Information, Puzzle Solving)
Science (Alchemy, Architecture, Medicine)
Social Sciences (History, Nobility and Royalty, Religion)
Stealth (Hide, Move Silently, Tail)
Streetwise (Black Market, Local Knowledge, Sense Motive)
Technology (Computer Use, Engineering/Trapmaking, Programming/Hacking)
Unnerve (Intimidate, Interrogation)

So I'm not sure if you intended this or not, but as I was reading your list, I was connecting it to how Shadowrun skills work, where you have your skill, and can specialize in the skill for an extra bonus in one area of it. (ie you get the skill Pilot Groundcraft, then you can specialize in Cars, Motorcycles, Hovercraft, whatever).

Following that, why not have D&D skill specialties? Let a character take Streetwise (Black Market), and have a bonus on rolls (and maybe a free skill trick or whatever) relating to the black market.

Just a thought.

[eftexar]

Shadowrun must play similar to nWoD then. Because that is exactly how they do it. I just figured taking 10, in place of a flat bonus, for specialties would be an equivalent mechanic for d20.

But I hadn't thought of a free skill trick. That might be a handy way to give a minor option boost at the start. It would avoid the normal level dipping trouble with classes since it would eliminate the need for more class features at the start.

[tarkisflux]

With regards to the math, you'd just use this slightly modified table.

[...]

I'm not sure that's the math that I'd be concerned about in such a change. A change like that opens up expected bonus and trick acquisition concerns that aren't present in the level based competence bonus setup.

The first weird case is the one where a person doesn't want to grab any tricks from a class skill for a few levels, because they're not interested or whatever. As a result, their bonus stays stagnant as their level goes up. That's not a bad thing on its own, but might be weird with other design priorities. It also prevents them from getting higher level tricks in the skill until they go back and pick some lower level things up because of the competence prereqs.

The second weird case is where they load up on lots and lots of tricks from a class skill. Assuming there are more than 2 tricks available per 4 character levels (which may not be a valid assumption, but seems a reasonable one), you can get a higher than expected competence bonus just by focusing in a class skill, which may also allow earlier than expected access to higher level abilities.

These are probably not all of the edge cases, and the problems are mostly solvable (level prereqs instead of bonus ones, cap on known tricks or bonus by level range, etc.), but the solutions I can see look either heavy handed or simply inelegant. I don't know that you gain a lot by making such a change.

[General Patton]

level prereqs instead of bonus ones, cap on known tricks or bonus by level range, etc.

>implying the first column didn't denote a level-based cap on the bonus

The first weird case is the one where a person doesn't want to grab any tricks from a class skill for a few levels, because they're not interested or whatever. As a result, their bonus stays stagnant as their level goes up.

Not wanting to grab any tricks = impossibru. In my suggestion, the ranks you gain are essentially MADE OUT OF the skill tricks. There are no ranks without tricks. Being given free tricks for your class skills is equivalent to being given free ranks under the implementation that Ziegander is currently considering.

It also prevents them from getting higher level tricks in the skill until they go back and pick some lower level things up because of the competence prereqs.

Not sure what you mean. This is no different from being unable to take higher level tricks until you get the prerequisite number of ranks.

The second weird case is where they load up on lots and lots of tricks from a class skill. Assuming there are more than 2 tricks available per 4 character levels (which may not be a valid assumption, but seems a reasonable one), you can get a higher than expected competence bonus just by focusing in a class skill, which may also allow earlier than expected access to higher level abilities.

Level-based cap. If a level 4 Cleric gets 2 free tricks in Knowledge(Religion), allowing him to be at the highest bonus for his level (in accordance with Ziegander's plans for class skills to get max ranks for free), and he spends additional points on more tricks, he doesn't get a larger bonus. He'd continue to get free tricks as he leveled, and his bonus would update as the level-based cap was raised. If he decided to multiclass as something that didn't get Religion tricks for free as a class skill, then those extra tricks he bought would come in handy for staying at the max bonus. But no amount of extra tricks would let him meet a +6 Competence prereq until he was level 9.

[Zovc]

So it occurred to me today how awesome it would be for specialist mages and/or Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necromancer allegories to be able to pick up "foreign school" spells and abilities through the Arcana/Spellcraft/Magic skill.

Figured I should bring attention to it. I wouldn't necessarily encourage Necromancers who have given up Conjuration to pick up 'Conjuration' skill tricks, but it'd be good to let players know that they can if they want to. Alternatively, you can make this against the rules, but you will want to state that clearly.

[tarkisflux]

Level-based cap. If a level 4 Cleric gets 2 free tricks in Knowledge(Religion), allowing him to be at the highest bonus for his level (in accordance with Ziegander's plans for class skills to get max ranks for free), and he spends additional points on more tricks, he doesn't get a larger bonus. He'd continue to get free tricks as he leveled, and his bonus would update as the level-based cap was raised. If he decided to multiclass as something that didn't get Religion tricks for free as a class skill, then those extra tricks he bought would come in handy for staying at the max bonus. But no amount of extra tricks would let him meet a +6 Competence prereq until he was level 9.

In my reply above I assumed the "pay for all tricks" model that Ziegander had previously proposed. I misread the line after the table about selecting free tricks directly and then buying extra ones, and thought you still intended for everyone to buy them at each level. Sorry about that.

Anyway, that's why I worried about people falling behind on selected tricks and bonuses if they elected to purchase lots of cross-class things instead. If the table should instead be read as "free tricks and competence bonus by level", then things are much more clear. You get some number of free tricks per level, can't have more than 2 free tricks per 4 character levels, and get your bonus boost every 4+ levels as soon as you put a trick in a skill. It sidesteps the concerns I had nicely and is rather elegant if you want people to have a minimum number of tricks at any given level as opposed to a minimum bonus at any given level (exactly how that tradeoff works out is subject to the free trick acquisition schedule and your ability to spread them around or not). With a reasonably large number of tricks per skill per level range (which seems pretty doable with a collapsed skill list) I could see it working extremely well.

[Grinner]

So, I was just thinking. What do you all think is an optimal rate of success for player characters, and should the math be balanced around highly optimized/specialized characters or relatively "normal" ones?

[Zovc]

So, I was just thinking. What do you all think is an optimal rate of success for player characters, and should the math be balanced around highly optimized/specialized characters or relatively "normal" ones?

Without using numbers because it's early (and I haven't had coffee in a long time):

I think specialists should regularly (50%+?) succeed challenges that are appropriate to their level.

The trick here, then, is figuring out how people grow and scale into challenges that are either outside of their specialty and more trivial, or how characters grow and scale into challenges that are above their levels--specialization or no.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

So, I was just thinking. What do you all think is an optimal rate of success for player characters, and should the math be balanced around highly optimized/specialized characters or relatively "normal" ones?

I think specialists should regularly (50%+?) succeed challenges that are appropriate to their level.

I'd say in the 70% range, roughly, for specialists facing level-appropriate encounters. 4e is calibrated to have around a 50-55% chance if you don't optimize your primary attack numbers and 65-70% if you do, and people still complain that it feels like you miss your attacks too often if you don't go all-out grabbing bonuses. If the baseline is 70% for specialists so you don't have to work so hard to optimize your main schticks, and then most options help you bring up your secondary foci instead of boosting your primary focus off the RNG, that should give people a comfortable success rate.

[Zovc]

That's fair enough. And you actually have some form of citation backing what you're bringing to the table. :)

While this doesn't change the framework of my statement, yours, or the conversation, I'd like to specify that when I used the word "challenge" I meant a challenge for a specialist. So, an especially difficult level-appropriate challenge, or a challenge for a higher tier of proficiency that can still be attempted.

[Yitzi]

I'd say in the 70% range, roughly, for specialists facing level-appropriate encounters. 4e is calibrated to have around a 50-55% chance if you don't optimize your primary attack numbers and 65-70% if you do, and people still complain that it feels like you miss your attacks too often if you don't go all-out grabbing bonuses.

I think that some of it might just be a question of playstyle; some people prefer to always hit, whereas others (such as myself) feel that that makes rocket tag approaches too powerful and feel that if the attacker optimizes his attack to the same extent that the defender optimizes his defense then it should be around a 50% chance of missing.

[nonsi]

I think I'm going full steam ahead with that second table I put up and moving on to the next design stage. That is, so long as no one has any major objections. I think we've struck upon the best skill system we can get at this point.

How do you plan to circumvent the fact that at least 1 rank out of 4 would be meaningless?
What I mean is that even if you make new tiers of skill tricks available at the even ranks, you'd still be left with ranks 3/7/11... granting nothing.

Btw, it seems unnecessary to me that all class skills are maximized, only the classes' key skills (arcana for mages, religion for priests, nature for druids/geomancers, sleight of hand etc). This by no means mean that a class should have exactly one skill auto-maximized, but there's definitely no reason to auto-advance all class skills.

Another thing I'm curious about is where (as in #at what level#) do you set the boundaries of human capabilities as far as skills go ? (remember that Jackie Chan is mortal, so kip-up & bounce-climbing two perpendicular walls should be within that realm).

One thing I strongly urge: Nuke the idea of multiplying 1st level skill points. Also, provide some kind of class-detached skill pool that everyone starts with. My sweet spot would be 4*4 for all races, with humans starting with 5*4 , but anything along those lines could be adequate with an appropriate equilibrium.

[Vortalism]

I'm just wondering Ziegander, how are you going to choose to compile all these "streamlines" to the D20/D&D3.5 system?

Is it going to be something like a "Rise" RPG or a "d20 reborn" project or some compiled handout, because especially in your first and second threads you go on making some very big and fundamental changes in how the d20 system operates.

I'm very excited as to how all these ideas will manifest themselves as a final product.


As for the skill system itself, I think that having a linearly scaling numerical system works fine for the most part. The issue that I think you're addressing is with the DC or challenge system instead. What I do in my game is to leave the arbitrary skill rank numbers arbitrary but have a couple of tables for commonly used skills in differing brackets describe the possibility and sheer power someone with +21 in swim would have.

Instead of forcing the players to deal with skill-trick styled synergies and powers in the skill system, on the DM side I present to them a variety of options that are possible for them because they have that arbitrary number. Personally, I haven't done it in a way that's very measured by any means. However, I think that its a pretty attention efficient idea.

[nonsi]

I'm just wondering Ziegander, how are you going to choose to compile all these "streamlines" to the D20/D&D3.5 system?

Is it going to be something like a "Rise" RPG or a "d20 reborn" project or some compiled handout, because especially in your first and second threads you go on making some very big and fundamental changes in how the d20 system operates.

I'm very excited as to how all these ideas will manifest themselves as a final product.


As for the skill system itself, I think that having a linearly scaling numerical system works fine for the most part. The issue that I think you're addressing is with the DC or challenge system instead. What I do in my game is to leave the arbitrary skill rank numbers arbitrary but have a couple of tables for commonly used skills in differing brackets describe the possibility and sheer power someone with +21 in swim would have.

Instead of forcing the players to deal with skill-trick styled synergies and powers in the skill system, on the DM side I present to them a variety of options that are possible for them because they have that arbitrary number. Personally, I haven't done it in a way that's very measured by any means. However, I think that its a pretty attention efficient idea.

My advice: Don't hold your breath. Just salvage whatever you can from this project.
Ziegander is a fountain of ideas, but he hasn't made an appearance since April and he doesn't complete the majority of his projects.
Furthermore, I don't remember him ever going back to a project he'd ditched.