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

[GM Dave]

For 5e, is WotC looking to go for a less 'word' defined skill system? Too early to tell.

I say it is too early to tell because it appears they had a system but they've done some re-thinking of their system. I'm not even sure what we see in the initial Playtest will fully give us a 'clue' as to what the skill system will finalize into.

An open skill role system which just uses the basic attributes is an easy to write system.

You just write a rule saying the player should make a roll against an appropriate attribute and the GM will let you know if you succeed of fail.

That kind of rule when it hits play testing is that it tends to have people wanting to fill in the 'blanks' with 'stuff'.

One of the articles that was written was the developers trying to decide if they got feedback to 'correct' this situation if they 'added' a new rule or they 'provided' more clarification and guidance.

This goes further to a psychology problem of types of people. Some people can live happily with vague rules and filling in the bits themselves while other people will only allow what is actually written to occur.

I've run into this problem with magic spells and requests to 're-skin' them to provide different themes. Sometimes I have a GM that says 'sure, go ahead'; sometimes I have a GM that says 'if you pay a feat tax then you can re-skin'; sometimes I have a GM that says 'Magic Missile does what it describes and if you want a different spell then you have to spend Xgp and time to invent a new spell'.

It is not just a 'skill' issue but an issue of how people interact with rules.

Do you reward and encourage people to do 'stunts' in combat like Dragon Age or do you make such things more difficult to do by imposing extra an more difficult roles then simply thumping the person?

It is also a 'game' issue in how people approach the hobby. If you approach the rules like the rules for a game of monopoly where the dice and rules direct the whole game then you will treat the rules in one way. If you approach the rules like they are guidelines for how you will have fun and are willing to add in other stuff (land on free parking and collect money or little sister gets to buy park place for half money because she is the youngest).

Some people will argue that if you are just going to 'make stuff up' why bother having rules in the first place.

Some people will argue that story trumps rules and that rolling for skills at all risks derailing a story (Robin Laws Gumshoe system takes this view).

The decision WotC ends up in will depend on the play testers and how Simulationist they demand the system to appear verses how much Story dominant they demand the system to be.

-------------------------------------------

Personally, I've come to dislike the Simulationist approach of 3e. If you don't have the correct skill then you have a problem. If you roll poorly then it doesn't matter that you are 'skilled' with a +12 modifier as you will still find yourself unable to do something 'basic' like stabilize a dying person.

There are also issues of skill rolls being needed to repeatedly complete a task that increases the odds of failure (multiple stealth rolls or multiple climb rolls).

I don't see this being 'alleviated' with going to a system of attribute rolls as you will see more design polarity among players and more complaints that they have an 8 or 6 attribute and not having several attributes of 16 or more to put into attribute slots.

I also don't think the developers are really going to get the full feed back on that side of the situation until the playtest opens up to character creation where the developers will see the 'average' character is being chosen to not have a 'rounded' set of attributes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Even though this is completely unrelated, I trying to recruit a group for a Mouse Guard game! Anyone interested?

 

[prosfilaes]

Everyone always says that the connection of attributes to skills was a bad thing, and points to Intimidate. That seems to be the outlier; there doesn't seem to be another skill that regularly needs to be used with another attribute, and even when they do, making the changes doesn't seem to be a big deal; minus one attribute, add another.

I have a mixed feeling about loosening up skills. As a general rule, in D&D 3 and PF, I can look in the PHB and know what my PC can do. If I'm looking at a chasm, I clearly know whether trying to jump it would be stupid, daring, or trivial. Even if the DM is consistent, it's hard to get that with a loose skill system, and if the DM is not consistent, it can be impossible to make a character that's sufficiently good at something to make me happy. Already, you can run into DMs where most beggers can see through a 35 Bluff; encouraging or expanding that doesn't really make me happy.

 

[Jhaelen]

Dunno. I think the 'problem' isn't solved by dropping skills and relying on attribute checks instead. If you have any kind of check, immersion suffers.

To give a fairly recent example from our 4e campaign:
Our party had been sneaking up on a high cliff overseeing a goblin town. This started a skill challenge to accumulate successes to find a way to enter and navigate the town undetected (although the DM didn't say so; this was just something being obvious to me as a player).

So what did I do? I looked over my list of skills to see which of my trained skills lent itself best to the task. I decided to attempt something involving my Streetwise check and told the DM I was looking for patterns in the goblins' movements, particularly the routes taken by patrols and any buildings that seemed to be highly frequented.

So my DM said "Fine, please make an Insight check."

Naturally, I was a bit miffed by that, since my Insight skill was rather bad. Unfortunately, asking "But wouldn't that rather be a Streetwise check?" didn't sway my DM at all.


There's several things to note here:
- the rules influenced my choice of actions: basically, as a player I try to maximize my chances to succeed at a given task by applying my rules knowledge (in this case about how skill challenges work)
- my character's stats influence my choice of actions: rather than thinking about what my character would likely do, I think about what my character's good at (although it could be argued that the pc knows what he's good at, too, and would prefer actions making use of his best skills)
- describing my actions in non-game-terms can lead to unexpected/unwanted results: I prefer telling my DM "I use skill X to <do stuff>", because this increases ethe likelihood of an expected result. Not mentioning the skill I'd like to use carries a greater risk of being 'overruled' and having to use a different skill.

So, yes, I'm apparently a shameless meta- and powergamer

As a player I'll always want to maximize my chances to succeed. If the system doesn't have skills, I'll want to use the pc's best attribute instead. If the system doesn't even have attributes, I'll want to use my character's background instead. And if the system is built to only challenge the player's skill, I'll try to use _my_ best skills whenever possible.

 

[N'raac]

The implied skill system has its merits. But what I am not looking forward to is the rules lawyer who tries to justify using charisma to climb a wall or strength to remember obscure lore on a cult. The rules lawyer in question will undoubtedly know that attrition will make the DM give because the DM doesn't want to bring the game to a screeching halt to argue with a troublesome player.

Dunno. I think the 'problem' isn't solved by dropping skills and relying on attribute checks instead. If you have any kind of check, immersion suffers.

The other side of this becomes "no checks, no rules, GM decides". This leaves the players unable to play characters whose skills differ markedly from their own. As an example, we see the games now where you don't roll diplomacy or intimidate - the GM decides whether you have persuaded the NPC based on your player's arguments. Great immersion right?

Well, until the shy wallflower player wants to play a charming and savvy rogue, sinks their best attribute into CHA, puts all their skill points into interaction-focused skills, and then discovers that the DM decides on his character's success based on the player's demonstrated skills.

Meanwhile, the eloquent and glib player focuses all of his character's resources into combat. He gets to succeed in combat because of his character's abilities, and in social settings because of his player abilities (despite the fact his character has a 6 CHA and no social skills whatsoever).

There's several things to note here:
- the rules influenced my choice of actions: basically, as a player I try to maximize my chances to succeed at a given task by applying my rules knowledge (in this case about how skill challenges work)
- my character's stats influence my choice of actions: rather than thinking about what my character would likely do, I think about what my character's good at (although it could be argued that the pc knows what he's good at, too, and would prefer actions making use of his best skills)
- describing my actions in non-game-terms can lead to unexpected/unwanted results: I prefer telling my DM "I use skill X to <do stuff="">", because this increases ethe likelihood of an expected result. Not mentioning the skill I'd like to use carries a greater risk of being 'overruled' and having to use a different skill.

So, yes, I'm apparently a shameless meta- and powergamer

I would see that a bit differently. As a character, I'm going to try to use the skills I'm good at because I also want to maximize my chances of success. And very skilled people can often extrapolate those skills into uses not considered by others. "This is how my character uses his Streetwise skill" is the rules-based explanation.

Mu character is going to focus on what he's good at. That savvy and charming rogue will try to solve problems with charm, not force, because he is charming, and not strong. If he needs someone beaten up, he won't use his 6 STR and 8 CON to administer a lengthy beating. He'll use his 14 INT and 18 CHA to persuade some local bruiser to administer the beating for him.

What I fear from descriptions to date is that a +2 static bonus is not going to differentiate character skills much. The result stands a fair chance of becoming Character A (good stat + skill) attempts the action. Roll fails. Well, Character B (good stat, no skill) takes a run at it. Character C (average stat, no skill) and Character D (poor stat, no skill) will try afterwards in the hopes of a lucky roll.

So the savvy Rogue with a bonus to persuasion tries first, with a +6 bonus (18 CHA and +2 skill). Oh! an 8 + 6 = 14, so not enough. Well, the Priest lacks the skill, but his CHA is pretty good - he'll give it a whirl. +3 from 16 CHA, so 11 + 3 = 14 - too bad! Drat - well, let's let the Wizard try. He has a 10 CHA and no skill, so flat roll. A 12 - not enough. Well, that leaves Stinky the Barbarian Dwarf, with his 4 CHA. May as well give it a whirl...wow - a 19 - 3 = 16 - he made it!

The current model suggests that a reasonably challenging DC for the Rogue will not be achieved by Stinky, but this system seems to imply a much reduced spread between character abilities. That makes the dice more important than the character's skills and abilities.

Now maybe we're talking about a base characteristic roll, in which case the savvy rogue succeeds automatically, as does the priest. So there's no possibility that the target can resist their persuasion - no real challenge - and again the Priest is just as good as the Rogue, so we have better differentiation, but not by a lot.

How different do we want characters to be, and how much of that differentiation are we prepared to sacrifice in the interest of simplicity?
</do>

 

[thzero]

Skills were around in 2e and 1e (via the two survival guides)... but really it goes more to the core of the game, skills is just one example. With attacking or magic use, etc. you end up with the same thing.

Personally I prefer a more detail oriented system like 3X (and others of its ilk, i.e. GURPS, etc) because I'm more detail oriented person. But in reality even in 3X, and even 4E, what you describe can be done. Nothing that says you can't let someone succeed at something, especially if it not a opposed type situation, just because there character is really strong or smart.

Also consider that while for some people the wide open nature of do whatever you want and the DM decides what needs to happen (auto success/failure, need some type of roll, flip of the dice, etc) may be great, how does it play to the mass audience? I think it makes the game more difficult to play and harder for new, returning, or even younger players to pick up.

Name a best selling RPG that does this. Can't really think of any.

Not to mention, not everyone is about in-depth "immersion"! Some people play just to have some fun, do something different, enjoy screwing around with friends, hacking apart monsters. Others play for very deep storylines and character development.

Blanket comments such as "If you have any kind of check, immersion suffers." are just stupid. For *you*, that may be true. But not for other people, and perhaps not even for the majority. And if there is a rule or system in a game (any game) that ruins your, your group, or what not immersion into whatever, you can always use "Rule 0" (0th rule of gaming, or robotics) to change it or simply ignore it!

- the rules influenced my choice of actions: basically, as a player I try to maximize my chances to succeed at a given task by applying my rules knowledge (in this case about how skill challenges work)
- my character's stats influence my choice of actions: rather than thinking about what my character would likely do, I think about what my character's good at (although it could be argued that the pc knows what he's good at, too, and would prefer actions making use of his best skills)

That isn't necessarily unrealistic or even un-immersive (is that a word? hah); in fact you admitted it in parathensis. People do that type of stuff on a daily basis (or at least one hopes so). You try and maximize your strengths and knowledge and put it to best use. Now thats not to say a person's strengths, abilities, knowledge is always the best tool for the job but nonetheless, typically people are going to naturally try and solve problems using their best attributes.

Bottom line, for me I guess, is that its really easy to go "fluffy" with a "crunchy" game that lends itself to a wide audience that it is to go from a "crunchy" game to a "fluffy" game. The former is, of course IMO, more easily approachable, has set actions, goals, etc. that can be performed. The latter is more nebulous and lacks appeal (again back to the question of what is the best selling game of this sort....).

Since AD&D the game (along with lots of others) has been defining actions that the characters can take for us. Whether it be skills, attacks, how to perform magic, etc. This isn't a bad thing, not only for your local group, but the community around the game as a whole. It gives a common understanding of what characters in the game world are able to do; allows the simulation to work across the board. This allows new modules, campaigns, worlds, etc. to be born and shared. Allows people to join new groups, have a common core to work from (crap that sounds like Dancy speak); even if the new game/group uses its own variation of house rules (or in 5E case, options).

 

[1Mac]

I agree that system affects play experience. But the specific distinction you are drawing between "verb" skills and "noun" abilities strikes me as highly subjective and impressionistic. I don't see much difference between "I Intimidate" and "I use Charisma," nor do I see how one or the other discourages the GM from asking players to describe actions, or encourages players to look at their character sheet rather than consider what their characters actually do.

If that distinction helps your group, great, but I doubt it's something you can generalize, and I don't think the 5e team should be especially concerned about it.

 

[RHGreen]

I was really looking forward to 5E being announced, pretty much just after 4E came out.

4E had some great design ideas that I could chew on, but TBH because of its streamlined structure it didn't take very long to digest. Which is great for the game, not so great when you want to ponder and evolve.

I was hoping there would be something good to think about through 5E, and I think this is the focus area.

I used to listen to RPGMP3.com and they did Shadowfell and the rest, and while I enjoyed listening to them there was something missing. Then they moved over to Warhammer. I looked at the rules and didn't really like them. They were a bit haphazard and illogical, but when listening to their game it had more feel to it, more roleplay and description. I couldn't put my finger on why the game had that effect, but what you have written here has hit the nail on the head. The setting and rules are more organic, descriptive and provoke imagination.

Great, this gives me something to ponder, cheers. Hopefully 5E will have an organic, imaginative feel without all of the mess of a system like Warhammer.

EDIT: I think it can be summarized by the term: ORGANIC DESIGN.

 

[Cybit]

Yes, yes, but.... do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?

Yes.

EDIT: Based on everything I've seen with articles and such, I think what you described is how the game currently plays.

 

[MortalPlague]

The current model suggests that a reasonably challenging DC for the Rogue will not be achieved by Stinky, but this system seems to imply a much reduced spread between character abilities. That makes the dice more important than the character's skills and abilities.

Now maybe we're talking about a base characteristic roll, in which case the savvy rogue succeeds automatically, as does the priest. So there's no possibility that the target can resist their persuasion - no real challenge - and again the Priest is just as good as the Rogue, so we have better differentiation, but not by a lot.

How different do we want characters to be, and how much of that differentiation are we prepared to sacrifice in the interest of simplicity?

In a 4th edition game right now, my rogue has a +17 bonus to stealth. He's trained, he's dextrous, and he has some items to round it out. The warlord in our party only has a +4 or so, mostly from half-level. There's a 13 point difference. So let's say we're sneaking past a guard post. What's the DC? If the DM puts the guards' perception at 22, it means I need to roll a 5 on a d20, while my warlord friend needs to roll an 18. Rather than attempt to steal quietly past the guards, the warlord will, in all likelihood, stay behind and wait. The sad fact is, even though his character might make the attempt, as a player, he looks at the 85% chance of failure and decides not to attempt the roll.

One of the potential charms of 5th edition is to decrease the spread between someone who's specialized and someone who isn't. Let's use the same example; my rogue has a +4 from Dexterity, and a +2 bonus while moving quietly. He's also got +2 for some magic boots. That winds up being a +8, for a considerable bonus on stealth. The warlord, on the other hand, has no dexterity bonus, but we'll give him a +2 bonus from a background that has something to do with hunting. So a +2. That's a 6 point spread.

DCs will be lower in 5E, due to the lack of half-level inflation. So let's say it's DC 15 to sneak past. My rogue makes it on a roll of 7, while the warlord makes that on a roll of 13. With some clever play on our part, we might get that advantage bonus that's been mentioned by some designers for a further +2. So I'd make the check on a roll of 5, while the warlord would make it on an 11.

Now that's a check the warlord would risk. With flatter math and better support for acting outside your specialty, you might get more adventurers who are willing to try something risky.

Furthermore, if my rogue has DEX 18, perhaps he makes the DC 15 stealth check automatically? We still don't know entirely how that works, but that would do a nice job of rewarding characters for being masters of their field without punishing those who want to try things they aren't ideally suited for.