On 5E Skills (aka How Game System Affects Immersion)

[dkyle]

So what I'm interested in is not how other people handle it. It's: do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?

You are probably right. They've said a lot about wanting to "empower" DMs, and making them the gatekeepers to the actual mechanics fits with that.

Unfortunately, I don't like the brand of empowering DMs that entails substituting DM judgement calls and fiat instead of clear, well-defined mechanics.

 

[DimitriX]

I like and agree with a lot of what you've posted. My new passion is Goodman Games' DCC RPG. For me, that IS D&DNext. It has a very simple skill system. First, there is no skill list. The character describes what they would like to do. The DM rules if the character can do the skill based upon the character's occupation from 0-level character creation (Yes! ZERO level) and the player makes a roll using an ability score decided upon by the DM. DC ratings (similar to what we saw in 3/3.5/4e) set the difficulty or they can be opposed. Its just that fast. It depends entirely upon the imagination and creativity of the player and DM.

One thing I noticed when running a game with my group was the direction they looked. In 4e, when I asked my players, "What do you do?", they usually looked down at their character sheets. In DCC RPG, when I ask them the same question, they look up and far away. In 4e, they were looking to the rules to give them an answer. In DCC RPG, they are looking within.

 

[Morrus]

One thing I noticed when running a game with my group was the direction they looked. In 4e, when I asked my players, "What do you do?", they usually looked down at their character sheets. In DCC RPG, when I ask them the same question, they look up and far away. In 4e, they were looking to the rules to give them an answer. In DCC RPG, they are looking within.

That's a great illustration, more eloquently put than my version.

This element of player psychology definitely exists, and it is strongly influenced as much by rules structure as it is by individuals or pages of advice.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That's a great illustration, more eloquently put than my version.

This element of player psychology definitely exists, and it is strongly influenced as much by rules structure as it is by individuals or pages of advice.

The players at our table look at each other in those situations. I'll have to think about that some to make a stab at how the rules structure works with that tendency.

 

[DimitriX]

That's a great illustration, more eloquently put than my version.

This element of player psychology definitely exists, and it is strongly influenced as much by rules structure as it is by individuals or pages of advice.

Yes, the rules and even the layout of the rules affects psychology. One of the things that I picked up on with 4e was that there would be pages and pages and pages of rules and powers, but few, if any, on fluff. WotC just assumed that people would fill in the fluff for themselves. But, they also targeted new players who may not know enough to fill in the fluff. With nothing more to go on, they focus on rules and powers. I think that's a reason why almost every 4e game I've seen turned into a table top miniatures skirmish game.

You know DnDNext better than just about anyone here on the forums. I bet if you look at DCC RPG, you'll see that Goodman Games has already solved a lot of the problems that WotC is still trying to address.

 

[Morrus]

You know DnDNext better than just about anyone here on the forums.

Nah. There are plenty here who have seen or played it. I'm neither.

 

[Rhenny]

This is a terrific issue to foreground for the next edition. Great ideas, Morrus, et. al.

I hate rules induced/options paralysis, which often happens when players feel the need to find the right skill or power to use in a situation.

I think your argument can even be extended to some extent to choices of powers in 4e as well (and other games too). While the powers in 4e helped players come up with actions to do in combat (the cards made them easy to see and refer to), I feel that they also limited immersion and most of the times when I would ask a player what he or she wanted to do in an combat round, he would have to look at all his cards and then make a decision. Sometimes (especially with wizard, but also with fighter and other classes) a player would spend time deciding what to do during his turn, but then rely on Magic Missle more times than I would like.

I'd love for D&D Next to make both non-combat and combat choices seem less scripted, and from what we've read (limited to posts and WoTC articles) it seems like they are thinking about this too.

p.s. After writing this, I read one of Morrus' other posts on another thread, which basically says a similar thing about the powers. Cheers.

 

[EmbraCraig]

I agree with most of this - it's become a bit of an inside joke at one of my games. We don't look around, we "perception-ise", along with other things...

I don't really try to get around it other than with social encounters - I've made it clear to players that they'll get bonuses to their rolls, or easier DCs, if they actually tell me in character what they're saying, and it is a good angle with a particular NPC. Of course, they don't get that bonus if they get their lines wrong for the NPC ...

 

[Alphastream]

So what I'm interested in is not how other people handle it. It's: do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?

I think you are spot on. From what was shared at D&DXP, it really sounds like your PC doesn't have intimidate. They have perhaps a background that helps them with checks to influence people through force (this may actually use the word "intimidate", but there is no intimidate skill). And, you have your ability.

First, I do agree that this is a move forward (while having a retro feel). You are freed up from a skill list, but you sort of still have them through your background/theme/class/whatever. You are a gladiator, you know how to threaten. You are a merchant, you know trade routes. That sort of language takes us away from the roll and better encourages us to role-play.

Second, it gets us past the issue of the barbarian that can't intimidate because he isn't charismatic. Because you describe what you do and the DM and player get to collaborate a bit, your description can really get us back to a strength or con or other ability check for intimidate.

Third, if we go back to early L&L columns (assuming they keep this) where they described caps and minimums, it could be that the really great description by the barbarian on how she is crushing the chair against the wall, coupled with the really awesome strength score, all means you don't even roll. You just keep on role-playing.

That's all massive win for me, and I'm a guy that loved 3E skill lists.

 

[Neuroglyph]

So what I'm interested in is not how other people handle it. It's: do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?

I think was what I was trying to get at was that there is no "right" way to handle the problem, no perfect solution, because it all comes down to what each individual group and DM defines what "role-playing" means to them.

Every DM and player has their own ideas of how to immerse in a role-playing game, has their own ideas on what constitutes role-playing, and it's one of the aspects of D&D Next that I fear is likely to be problematic. It's one of the reasons that we have so many D&D gamers spread across 5 editions of the game, and every one of them feels that they are playing the version that makes sense to them. For some non-weapon proficiencies are all they need for a skill system, while others look at SRD/d20 skills and feats as the ultimate achievement. And for still others, none of those systems make sense, and they maintain that OD&D/AD&D with no skill system had it right from the start.

So you can try and create theme and class descriptors instead of skills and feats, and that will make sense to some players and enhance their role-playing experience. But for every one of those folks that system makes sense to, there could be one or five or even a hundred D&D players out there looking for skills and feat mechanics to help them define the sort of character they are portraying, because that makes sense to them.

And on a personal note, I think the process of creating D&D Next, with its endless polls and secretive community playtesting, has had a tendency to point out more and more of the divisiveness between D&D playstyles, and underscore just how different the gamers of each edition are from each other. So in actuality, I fear that D&D Next has as much lower chance of uniting the D&D community than it does of creating yet another edition schism and edition war.