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

[Morrus]

There is another side to this:

One thing clear and codified rules do is to allow the player to make an educated decision when interacting with the game world. You have a good idea what your own capabilities are, and can act with an accurate idea how it will turn out.

When using a system heavily dependent on DM discretion, it's like interacting with the game world while blindfolded, having only a vague idea what is in front of you.

There are plenty of rules-light systems out there, and it doesn't tend to manifest that way. It becomes a ore organic, natural exchange of information: "Does that wall look hard to climb?" "it's pretty slippery and there are few handholds; it looks pretty difficult to you."

If you compare an "action" sequence in Feng Shui - heck, or even Dread, a game with almost no rules at all - to a rules-heavy system like D&D, this just doesn't become a problem. What happens is that there's a lot more description and imagination flying round the table than there is game terminology.

Sure, those two examples are pretty extreme, and I don't think anyone's advocating going that light. But it is a phenomenon that a game with large amounts of game terminology (keywords, skill names, etc.) will tend to become more mired in that terminology as a method of communication rather than using natural language to describe actions.

The example above of "Perception check on the door" is a good one. Sure, it's a simple example and of course you can say "I listen at the door for movement on the other side" or "I carefully examine the door for hints of traps" instead, but often people don't; and that's to do with the system, not the people.

I've seen the very same people play two different games, and seen this phenomenon. The argument that it's the group's fault starts to fall a little thin there, when the exact same people manifest different terminology of interaction with two different games makes it clear that the rules structure is a factor in this.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There are plenty of rules-light systems out there, and it doesn't tend to manifest that way. It becomes a ore organic, natural exchange of information: "Does that wall look hard to climb?" "it's pretty slippery and there are few handholds; it looks pretty difficult to you."

If you compare an "action" sequence in Feng Shui - heck, or even Dread, a game with almost no rules at all - to a rules-heavy system like D&D, this just doesn't become a problem. What happens is that there's a lot more description and imagination flying round the table than there is game terminology.

Sure, those two examples are pretty extreme, and I don't think anyone's advocating going that light. But it is a phenomenon that a game with large amounts of game terminology (keywords, skill names, etc.) will tend to become more mired in that terminology as a method of communication rather than using natural language to describe actions.

The example above of "Perception check on the door" is a good one. Sure, it's a simple example and of course you can say "I listen at the door for movement on the other side" or "I carefully examine the door for hints of traps" instead, but often people don't; and that's to do with the system, not the people.

I've seen the very same people play two different games, and seen this phenomenon. The argument that it's the group's fault starts to fall a little thin there, when the exact same people manifest different terminology of interaction with two different games makes it clear that the rules structure is a factor in this.

That kind of misses my point, which is that a light system can result in people being hesitant to take actions in the first place, either because players feel blind to how the game world works, or aren't into that back and forth with the DM. I've seen both at the table.

 

[Morrus]

That kind of misses my point, which is that a light system can result in people being hesitant to take actions in the first place, either because players feel blind to how the game world works, or aren't into that back and forth with the DM.

I've not noticed that in the rules-light games I've played. People seem perfectly willing to take actions. The main difference is that the range of actions and the way they verbalize them has a tendency to be different.

But yes; I get your point that some people might not be into that natural language method; similarly, some people aren't that into the game-mechanic language method. Whatever a game does, some people will be into that, and some won't.

It seems to me that WotC is providing for the latter group with the optional rules modules, and for the former group with a core light system. In other words, they're aiming for both groups of people.

 

[MichaelSandar]

I can't say I'm a big fan of skills in the game overall. I don't mind that they appear to be adding a bonus to a certain action type (Endurance type checks gain a +2 bonus), but all of these 'skills' are easily resolved with ability checks (when a check is needed at all!) and they darn sure stifle creativity and immersion. When a player in my 3x game says they're searching a room, and I respond with 'where in the room are you searching?' they stare at me with a blank expression. 'Doesn't the skill cover that?' they ask?

Well, sure. It does. But I guess it's all about your individual play style.

I can't force a player to play one way or another - they need to have fun too, and if it's the rolling of dice that does that, then sure, roll your check.

BUT.

You would have found the treasure chest under the bed if you had just said you were looking there in the first place. No check necessary. To bad you rolled that 1.

 

[Thotas]

...then sure, roll your check.

BUT.

You would have found the treasure chest under the bed if you had just said you were looking there in the first place. No check necessary. To bad you rolled that 1.

This is the style of play I like best! The character's skill is acknowledged and incorporated by the rules, but proactive thoughtful players are rewarded as well. Best of both, in my eyes.

 

[MortalPlague]

I would suggest that 22 Perception is the issue. Why are these guards so amazingly perceptive?

Color my post by the fact that the game we're in is high heroic. I'm not picturing a generic guard post, but rather a monstrous guard post. Those are hobgoblin soldiers listening for footfalls, not bored guardsmen.

That's a difference in chance of success of 30%. Is that what we want? Is the best an expert vs someone with no training can achieve is, say, a 40% improvement (removing that +2 background bonus) in his chance of success? There are points in its favour - the warlord steps out of his comfort zone and tries to be stealthy. There are also points against it - that specialization in a skill doesn't seem so "special" any more when anyone can manage the same feats with just a little more luck.

Personally, I don't mind this sort of spread. I think a 30 or 40% difference is fine to differentiate. If we're talking a 30% difference in attack rolls, we're talking about a vastly superior warrior. A bonus that large should make itself felt over the course of a campaign. I'm not in the school of thought that specialists should always succeed and make anyone else look clumsy by comparison. But with a 6 point swing, a specialist will succeed more often than someone who isn't.

For me, it all comes back to playing outside one's comfort zone. In the current edition, and in 3E/Pathfinder, players are so heavily discouraged from using anything they aren't trained in. The spread of numbers is so great that being told to roll a skill you don't have is practically a condemnation to failure. I want to see D&D enable my characters to make an attempt on a skill I'm not ideally suited for. My rogue might have a +1 from Intelligence, and he could roll on a DC 15 knowledge check. Who knows? Maybe he picked up a scrap of valuable information in his travels. That warlord from the example could make an attempt to be stealthy, and instead of guaranteed failure, he'd have a fifty - fifty shot to make it. That sort of flexibility is something I'd like to see.

 

[N'raac]

Color my post by the fact that the game we're in is high heroic. I'm not picturing a generic guard post, but rather a monstrous guard post. Those are hobgoblin soldiers listening for footfalls, not bored guardsmen.

So how likely should it be that the Local Yokel can creep past them unnoticed? If we want that Warlord with a +2 bonus to slip past on a 13+, that means the local farmer with no bonus or penalty slips past on a 15+, and Clumsy Claude, with his -2 penalty to all things DEX based, will slip past these highly alert hobgoblin soldiers listening intently for footfalls 20% of the time. Suddenly, those Hobgoblins don't seem remotely alert.

But if we bump the DC to, say, 19 (so Claude, who can roll an 18 at best, does not have a 5% chance of passing unnoticed), then the local yokel gets past 10% of the time (still seems pretty high), and the warlord needs a 15+ - will he take a chance on a 30% possibility of success, or will he stay behind - just like before - and let the "expert" who now has a 50/50 shot travel alone? And just how "expert" are you feeling with even odds of failure?

Personally, I don't mind this sort of spread. I think a 30 or 40% difference is fine to differentiate. If we're talking a 30% difference in attack rolls, we're talking about a vastly superior warrior. A bonus that large should make itself felt over the course of a campaign. I'm not in the school of thought that specialists should always succeed and make anyone else look clumsy by comparison. But with a 6 point swing, a specialist will succeed more often than someone who isn't.

I would argue that all adventurers have growing expertise in combat. Their BAB rises over time. Compared to Local Yokel, that +5 enjoyed by a 10th level Wizard seems pretty impressive, and the wizard isn't doing a lot of combat drills.

For me, it all comes back to playing outside one's comfort zone. In the current edition, and in 3E/Pathfinder, players are so heavily discouraged from using anything they aren't trained in. The spread of numbers is so great that being told to roll a skill you don't have is practically a condemnation to failure. I want to see D&D enable my characters to make an attempt on a skill I'm not ideally suited for. My rogue might have a +1 from Intelligence, and he could roll on a DC 15 knowledge check. Who knows? Maybe he picked up a scrap of valuable information in his travels. That warlord from the example could make an attempt to be stealthy, and instead of guaranteed failure, he'd have a fifty - fifty shot to make it. That sort of flexibility is something I'd like to see.

And that's fine. It comes down to different goals for the game - how "expert" do we want our experts to be? This skill model suggests a 20th level Rogue won't be all that much better at stealth than a local farmer. A lot of his bonuses will likely come from magic items, rather than innate skill. And anyone with a high DEX will be nearly as effective, since "training" is a +2 flat bonus - there is no actual training to become more stealthy over time.

Why not also set BAB at first level, and be done with that as well. Then we don't need huge spreads in AC either, and the Wizards have a chance to hit with their daggers, albeit 30% or so lower than the Warrior's. That should also be enough of a spread, shouldn't it? Saves can be done the same way - there's no need for them to become more difficult, and have saves improve over time, either, is there?

That model can certainly work. The question is simply how wide a variance we want between "average Joe", "average adventurer", "trained adventurer" and adventurers (trained or not) of a variety of levels. Different preferences will certainly exist.

 

[prosfilaes]

all of these 'skills' are easily resolved with ability checks

Sometimes, I'd rather replace ability checks with skill checks. A "smart" character is boring. A character who knows about Po Li cooking and Chelaxian drama is interesting. Having one rogue that can climb well and find/remove traps well, and another that can hide in shadows and pick pockets well is more fun then cookie-cutter rogues. That's part of the reason D&D, since AD&D 1, has given players more options to make their character.

When a player in my 3x game says they're searching a room, and I respond with 'where in the room are you searching?' they stare at me with a blank expression. 'Doesn't the skill cover that?' they ask?

Sure, I'll label the squares of the room, and for each 5-ft. square you can tell me the exact contents of that square, and I will tell you how I'm manipulating those contents, the wall, the ceiling and the floor to examine them. You'll have to be patient since I'm not a trained searcher, unlike my character, but I do know that it involves carefully checking everything.

You would have found the treasure chest under the bed if you had just said you were looking there in the first place. No check necessary. To bad you rolled that 1.

And the probability that I will "roll a 1" when I'm searching is much higher then the probability that I will roll a 1 when my character is searching.

 

[N'raac]

Seems to me that a big treasure chest "hidden" under a bed is not that tough to find, so a DC of 5 is probably high. Anyone with a +4 or better, and certainly anyone taking 10, is going to find it (1's are not skill autofails, at least prior to 4e). Only someone not very skilled in searching (+3 or less) stands any chance of spending a full round action (ie a few seconds) without looking under the bed in that limited time period. A thorough search with no time limits (ie taking 20) guarantees it will be found.

So it's really "too bad your character only had a few seconds to search while fleeing from the Bugbears and he rolled a 1".

However, if the range of possible Search bonuses ranges from -2 to +8, then a DC 25 secret door is well nigh impossible for anyone to find by anyone. What is a "difficult" task under this model? Probably DC 15, which means the expert searcher finds the hidden door 70% of the time, and the dullard trips over it 20% of the time.

 

[beepeearr]

I think it is WotC intent, and to be honest it sounds a lot like the proficiency system of 2e with passive rolls ie take ten being the default and active rolls ie roll d20 being used only occasionally. It just seems like a backwards step.

What is wrong with a character being exceptional at something, working as a team does not require everyone to be able to do everything. Why would the Armor clad warlord attempt to sneak past the guard, thats the rogues job, let him shine by being able to sneak past, then it is up to him to find a clever way to deal with the sentries.

Auto success if your bonus alone would succeed or passive checks in non threatening situations could achieve the same increase in game play speed, but I'm not a fan of just saying you failed with no roll though.

As far as immersion goes, the same effect can be achieved by telling your players to just describe what they are doing, and you as the DM decides what kind of check that is.

The same people who just say I make a perception or deception check
will just start saying I make a wisdom or charisma check. You know what does work though, rewarding the players for good roleplaying or descriptive actions.

I give hero points (or whatever points ie action points) for good roleplay, and either a +2 or +5 bonus for good descriptions of actions. After all don't Players like getting rewarded for their actions.