Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
Why do you use rules for combat then? (Or are those really simple in 1e too?)
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How does a game work without skills?
- Thread starter Silvercat Moonpaw
- Start date
Jackelope King
First Post
If you don't use a skill system of some sort, you're resolving challenges with a game of "DM May I?" It's a declarative style of resolution, where if you declare the correct action or actions, the challenge is resolved. And if you know how the DM thinks and know how to appeal to (or just agree with) what the DM considers "common sense", you'll do fine.
For emphasis: this is not a bad thing.
Again: this is not a bad thing.
Here's essentially how it works: when you want to resolve a challenge of some sort (such as the above "sneak up on a guard"), you start talking about all of the preparations your character will take. If your DM agrees that these are adequate preparations and your actions make sense to the DM, then you'll succeed.
Indeed, this can work just as well as a defined skill system, if not better. However, it relies extremely heavily on the DM and the players having a high level of agreement between them with respect to "what makes sense". But if you've been gaming with people for thirty years, odds are you have just that, and arguments over whether or not it "makes sense" to blacken your skin with soot that quickly and successfully, and whether or not you're even able to find sufficient soot to do so, or whether it "makes sense" that the fighter was "stupid" for not wrapping his feet in his tunic to pad them better. This undermines the cooperation and agreement that declarative resolution relies upon.
A defined skill system takes this off the table (for the most part), and only relies on the DM to set the circumstances. It can help create the agreement a group needs to resolve challenges because, hey, it's hard to argue with a 15 on someone's character sheet and a 20 on their die roll.
The other difference between a defined skill-system and a declarative resolution system is that in the former, characters become more of an "imperfect lens" for a player than under the latter. When your character's ability to sneak is quantified on your character sheet as "+0", then your character is bad at sneaking, never mind that you, the player, used to be in the Special Forces and know everything there is to know about stealth. When you roll, your character will likely do worse than the cashier from the grocery store's character with a +15 in stealth. But that's okay, because the cashier's character is the sneaky rogue and your character is a fighter. They're different characters with different capabilities, and just because I'm a medical student doesn't mean that my dumb-as-dirt fighter should be a better healer than the cleric with 10 ranks in Heal.
Personally, my preference leans towards the defined skill-system, as I prefer characters with marked differences, and really want to encourage players to play different sorts of characters. However, I also like it when my players are thinking on their feet and are trying to be clever, so my preference in skill systems are ones that grant players bonuses for smart ideas. For old-school games where characters really aren't much more than avatars for players, and explorations of character motivation aren't really part of the goal, this "imperfect lens" isn't really helpful. In those games, it's about challenging the players, whose characters are glorified game-pieces.
Different types of games and groups have different needs and preferences. Even if it's not my preference, a purely declarative method of resolving skill challenges is certainly workable, especially with the right group.
For emphasis: this is not a bad thing.
Again: this is not a bad thing.
Here's essentially how it works: when you want to resolve a challenge of some sort (such as the above "sneak up on a guard"), you start talking about all of the preparations your character will take. If your DM agrees that these are adequate preparations and your actions make sense to the DM, then you'll succeed.
Indeed, this can work just as well as a defined skill system, if not better. However, it relies extremely heavily on the DM and the players having a high level of agreement between them with respect to "what makes sense". But if you've been gaming with people for thirty years, odds are you have just that, and arguments over whether or not it "makes sense" to blacken your skin with soot that quickly and successfully, and whether or not you're even able to find sufficient soot to do so, or whether it "makes sense" that the fighter was "stupid" for not wrapping his feet in his tunic to pad them better. This undermines the cooperation and agreement that declarative resolution relies upon.
A defined skill system takes this off the table (for the most part), and only relies on the DM to set the circumstances. It can help create the agreement a group needs to resolve challenges because, hey, it's hard to argue with a 15 on someone's character sheet and a 20 on their die roll.
The other difference between a defined skill-system and a declarative resolution system is that in the former, characters become more of an "imperfect lens" for a player than under the latter. When your character's ability to sneak is quantified on your character sheet as "+0", then your character is bad at sneaking, never mind that you, the player, used to be in the Special Forces and know everything there is to know about stealth. When you roll, your character will likely do worse than the cashier from the grocery store's character with a +15 in stealth. But that's okay, because the cashier's character is the sneaky rogue and your character is a fighter. They're different characters with different capabilities, and just because I'm a medical student doesn't mean that my dumb-as-dirt fighter should be a better healer than the cleric with 10 ranks in Heal.
Personally, my preference leans towards the defined skill-system, as I prefer characters with marked differences, and really want to encourage players to play different sorts of characters. However, I also like it when my players are thinking on their feet and are trying to be clever, so my preference in skill systems are ones that grant players bonuses for smart ideas. For old-school games where characters really aren't much more than avatars for players, and explorations of character motivation aren't really part of the goal, this "imperfect lens" isn't really helpful. In those games, it's about challenging the players, whose characters are glorified game-pieces.
Different types of games and groups have different needs and preferences. Even if it's not my preference, a purely declarative method of resolving skill challenges is certainly workable, especially with the right group.
Fifth Element
Legend
Compared to 3E/4E? Yes.
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
Yeah...sorta. The thing is, the DM still defines the difficulty, and still defines many of the modifiers that get applied. And he probably takes your PC's skill level into account when he creates the challenge. For example, when designing an adventure, I used to think "okay, this should present a decent challenge for an average 4th level Fighter (which assumes a decent strength and some skill points in the athletic skills), and he should have about a 65% chance of success..." and I'd back into a DC number that way. Now, I cut to the chase and make it simpler.
If you've got a challenge that's pre-defined off a list of "appropriate DCs" you can short-cut that procedure and avoid tying it tightly to the PC, but DCs and details for stuff like "climb a wall with the assistance of a knotted rope" is a usually a waste of time, anyway; you really only need to worry about challenges that really are challenges. And in those cases, you're always going to have the DM making some evaluations and adjustments.
For me, the overhead of a detailed and granular system is more trouble than it's worth. I don't think it buys you as much consistency and impartiality as it might seem to, on the surface, so I think it adds a lot of trouble and bookkeeping for little reward. Like you said, though, different preferences and all.
Jackelope King
First Post
Oh, I hear ya. For the most part, I just use the simple rule-of-thumb with a DC between 0-9 being "easy", something that anybody could reasonably do. 10-19 are a little harder, but something that you'd expect someone with a little bit of training to be able to do most of the time. 20-29 are the DCs that only someone with a good amount of training is going to be able to succeed at, while 30+ are DCs that only the experts will be able to do. 20 tends to be my "default" that I'll move up or down depending on how hard the challenge is. Then it's just a matter of assigning modifiers based on what the player has come up with (on the order of +1, +2 or +5) or penalties for the circumstances (on the order of -1, -2 or -5). It's quick, and it rewards players playing smart while still differentiating between the different characters' capabilities.
(Of course, it's even easier when you're using opposed skill checks. Just glance at the NPC and roll to get your DC.)
darjr
I crit!
I started playing with Moldvay. No ability checks. They are not in 1st editions DMG or PHB.
Yes, we did house rule them eventually, so I don't disagree with you, really, just being pedantic, I guess.
In both games the DM as an option was suggested to decide on some number to roll, and have the player try and make that number.
Some of the things that would be done with skill checks now had special rules or were built into other rule subsystems.
In reading about this in the DMG, it is interesting that unarmed combat, all of a sudden, is done with percentage die. But grabbing things is (at least by example) done by a normal to hit roll verses a DM assigned AC.
edit: yes, I'd forgotten about unarmed combat. I'm sure I've read it, I'm also sure I've never used it.
Last edited:
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
The unarmed combat rules in the 1e DMG suck. The rules from UA are better.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
They are if there aren't explicit written rules for making them which, in many early editions of D&D, there weren't
PCs are competent in everything that adventurers with their background could reasonably be expected to be competent in.
If in doubt,
Make an ability check, or
Roll d6, possibly +attribute modifier, vs target number (roll high or low depending on which check, or
Roll a d6 or % etc vs GM-chosen chance of success
I've never felt the lack of skills in any iteration of D&D. IME skills tend to interfere with immersion when you find out the heroic PC has no ranks in eg Balance or Diplomacy and can't do simple things that an adventurer in a book or movie could.
If in doubt,
Make an ability check, or
Roll d6, possibly +attribute modifier, vs target number (roll high or low depending on which check, or
Roll a d6 or % etc vs GM-chosen chance of success
I've never felt the lack of skills in any iteration of D&D. IME skills tend to interfere with immersion when you find out the heroic PC has no ranks in eg Balance or Diplomacy and can't do simple things that an adventurer in a book or movie could.
Moldvay Basic explicitly describes d20 roll-under-attribute checks as an optional rule.
Similar Threads
