I want my actions to matter

[MNblockhead]

I'll continue this thought experiment: what is the optimal skill list that lies between current and "thousands"? More specifically, what's the list of skills that stops the full set of problems that exist today with, for example, climbing vs. swimming?

I agree that "thousands" was a bit hyperbolic, but I think the intent of that statement was what I'm about to suggest: the optimal list, though under that number, is unwieldy enough to make the current system just easier to use. But let's see if you've got a list of skills that proves me wrong!

Well in my Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4th Edition game, with the books that I own and are in use:

There 20 basic skills that any character can attempt tests for: Athletics, Bribery, Charm, Charm Animal, Climb, Consume Alcohol, Cool, Dodge, Drive, Endurance, Gamble, Gossip, Haggle, Intimidate, Intuition, Leadership, Outdoor Survival, Perception, and Row.

For advanced skills, which you get from your species and careers there are 155. Then there are 195 Talents (non-spell special abilities). But it is a completely different systems that gives a very different character building and advancement experience.

 

[Maxperson]

Well in my Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4th Edition game, with the books that I own and are in use:

There 20 basic skills that any character can attempt tests for: Athletics, Bribery, Charm, Charm Animal, Climb, Consume Alcohol, Cool, Dodge, Drive, Endurance, Gamble, Gossip, Haggle, Intimidate, Intuition, Leadership, Outdoor Survival, Perception, and Row.

For advanced skills, which you get from your species and careers there are 155. Then there are 195 Talents (non-spell special abilities). But it is a completely different systems that gives a very different character building and advancement experience.

If climbing, endurance, rowing and dodging are separate skills, what does athletics cover?

 

[niklinna]

And how many players did he have?

Oh it wasn't his game, he was just telling me about it while we were in line for registration or something. It might have been a game he was signed up for though!

Well, that's super creepy. I would have been 'hard pass on that game, sir' while backing away slowly. What would possess someone to put that restriction on a game? They want serious players I suppose, for whatever reason. I'm sure there are better ways of achieving that goal though.

Yeah he wasn't selling me on it. I was still in high school so I thought gosh, do I really have to memorize the whole book to play at conventions? Fortunately that turned out not to be true of my Gen Con experience.

 

[pemerton]

If climbing, endurance, rowing and dodging are separate skills, what does athletics cover?

Without knowing that particular rulebook, I would assume it is running and jumping.

 

[Bagpuss]

I'll continue this thought experiment: what is the optimal skill list that lies between current and "thousands"? More specifically, what's the list of skills that stops the full set of problems that exist today with, for example, climbing vs. swimming?

I agree that "thousands" was a bit hyperbolic, but I think the intent of that statement was what I'm about to suggest: the optimal list, though under that number, is unwieldy enough to make the current system just easier to use. But let's see if you've got a list of skills that proves me wrong!

No such thing as an optimal list, at least not one you could apply to every game or gamer.

TWERPS has one attribute Strength that it uses for attack, hit points, and skill checks, and is a perfectly playable fun RPG experience.

Call of Cthulhu has close to 60 on the character sheet, but with blank spaces to add your own, and that works for it.

There are games were skills are grouped by type, but then have specialisations so you could be good at Athletics but particularly skilled in Climbing.

Thinking there is some optimal list is clearly a false goal, if you have some genres where you can't even drive a car (because they don't exist), and others where you are flying spaceships with railguns.

For some games Athletics as a catch all for any physical movement would be fine, but for some RPGs you might need to have a split between climbing and swimming and if you were doing a RPG about Parkour, you'd probably want to break it down considerably more.

 

[MNblockhead]

If climbing, endurance, rowing and dodging are separate skills, what does athletics cover?

Athletics (Ag) basic
Your ability to run, jump and move with speed or grace, and to perform any general physical activity.

One reason the skills get broken out in this way is that they are tied to career advancements. But some are just quirks of Warhammer flavor (consume alcohol, for example ).

 

[pemerton]

Athletics (Ag) basic
Your ability to run, jump and move with speed or grace, and to perform any general physical activity.

No surprises there!

 

[mamba]

I think this is the wrong question. The issue isn't necessarily the number of skills. Let's go with 2000 skills for a moment. If you get 500 skill points a level, 2000 skills isn't going to be so bad from a selection perspective.

that is about the only perspective from which it is not bad

So the question isn't necessarily how many skills(though you can have too few or too many), but rather how do we make it so that a reasonable number of the skills we are using can be chosen. "Optimal" becomes a combination of number of skills and the points/proficiencies you can choose

If that were true, you would not have also said

What 5e has done is over condense the skills, and then outside of a few outlier builds, make it so that you can only be proficient in a small number of those skills.

 

[mamba]

Go about this?"

Is "this" here safeguarding the brand? Meaning, you're either disputing or unclear about whether this is possible in culture generally or the D&D zeitgeist/culture specifically?

in a way that ensures that WotC keeps D&D in a state that leaves it as the ones safeguarding it want it and away from whatever unspecified changes you want to see, yes

As far as design things I'm advocating for? I don't care.

well, then I am not even sure why you are complaining or what is being safeguarded here

All you gave was WotC presumably reacting to cultural changes, that is not one group safeguarding the game.

Are you saying the only time it was safeguarded was 5e, while the previous editions reacting to cultural changes were not?

 

[Maxperson]

that is about the only perspective from which it is not bad


If that were true, you would not have also said

You seem to have missed...

"So the question isn't necessarily how many skills(though you can have too few or too many), but rather how do we make it so that a reasonable number of the skills we are using can be chosen. "Optimal" becomes a combination of number of skills and the points/proficiencies you can choose."

Which means...

"What 5e has done is over condense the skills, and then outside of a few outlier builds, make it so that you can only be proficient in a small number of those skills."

Is something that I would have said.

Too few and skills become overbroad and give competency in too many different things, creating issues like being completely unable to be a bad swimmer, but good climber. Too many and it bogs down the selection process and skills become hyper focused to the point that many will rarely or never used. It's the fairly wide middle ground where "optimal" becomes a combination of number of skills and the point/proficiencies that you can choose.