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

[Alphastream]

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

I've never had an issue with this. I see 4E as working to capture the story of the PCs, and that story is one of increasing challenge (which ends up being a challenge appropriate to them, since they also increased in capability). At low levels they are involved in things that are low in challenge; the guards they find are guards that are not particularly capable. As the party reaches higher levels, they are interacting with guards that are much more capable.

While there are a few issues (say, in Epic you come back to the same tavern you visited in Heroic), overall it really works. If you come back to the heroic tavern, the DM shouldn't really be requiring checks. Anyone that requires a check is an epic threat/NPC that has come there due to their reputation, rather than being the same small-time crook from level 1.

For some people this system is really bad. It hurts them to see the DCs of locks increase as their PCs level up. I have always preferred this. The DM can easily explain why, and it really is a waste of time for an Epic PC to have to in any way hear about or deal with a heroic tier lock.

 

[thzero]

I'm guessing that the times the DM just says "yeah, you make it, no roll needed" are the replacement of the "take 10" rule.

ding, ding, ding... winner winner chicken dinner!

 

[thzero]

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.

Can I rinse and repeat my answer? Maybe I've been isolated, but I've never actually set in on a game anywhere (including GenCon) where there was a lot of "immersive acting" going on, but rather everything was in game terms even with games such as Amber (ya, boo, ya, boo, ya, boo). Any prose related gaming has been through MU*s and/or PBEM/PBP style of games.

Frankly "game terms" is easiest for the vast majority of people to play in. Not everyone, well IMO most everyone, is not very good at descriptive prose. And if your group is then that is great for you if that is what you are in to, but for the rest of us "mere gaming mortals" it is just far easier to talk in "game terms".

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.

Yup. Done that for eons. It isn't that hard, it doesn't take any addition rules, and frankly it allows the game to have a more "vibrant" system (skill, attack, etc.) for the situations in which skill does play a factor.

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.

Righto. I've never seen anything in a crunchy set of rules that says "Do not attempt to feed the bear". So if a group is good at it and/or enjoys it, or even if one or two players enjoy it (as long as it doesn't interfere with the other's enjoyment.. ) to add "flavor" on top of whatever roles. That used to be pretty common fare on the RPG MU*s; you roll your mechanic and then based on that "describe" what your character did or did not accomplished.

But the other way does not work. You can hand wave any rule, but its hard to actually use a rule if it is not there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

If you are used to skills for every situation (which a lot of games have these days) it can be tricky. It can also be tricky if you are used to 3e or 4e and go back to an older edition like 2e or 1e where (even with with optional nwp rules) the phb doesn't cover a lot of the more standard skills that come upnin the new editions. We found this when we ran Ravenloft 2e again last year. People were stumbling a bit looking for their perception skill or similar abilities. Personally I am no enemy of skill lists (though I have said I am conflicted about them). What I will say is the difference in the behavior of this group was noticeable (and these are guys who are by nature into heavy role play and immersion). But too often when we ran 3e or similar skill heavy games (including ones I designed) people would say "i intimidate" etc. They may even say they look around the room and then roll a detect check (in my own system). This didn't always happen, but it did tend to occur. Without those skills there was just a lot more detail in their descriptions of what they did and a heck of a lot more interacting with the envirnoment (i look around became "i check behind the statue" and I intimidate became "i give him the stare and loom over him like I am about to throw a punch"). These can all be done in a system of skills, but i think skills do eat at the tendancy to do this. I also think skills can make these descriptions superfluous depending on how gms handles social interaction and detection (does it matter what I say if I roll a 3 or a 19?).