Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system

[GMMichael]

If the PC can make a logical case why their background will allow them to skillfully preform an action I will allow it dependent on the circumstances. . . however they overthink absolutely everything to the point of paralysis. There are a great deal of politics and NP interaction in the game, and combats tend to be very dangerous most of the time. Everyone is very attached to their PCs (because I have designed things to encourage this attachment) and no one wants to die.

Allow me to open up my D&D Emergency Kit...paralysis can be remedied with a few band-aids:

• Forget about succeed/fail. If your PCs think in these terms, they'll overthink anything (roll) that could result in a Fail. Add some gray area in between.
• Remove death as a possibility. Ever heard of a "fate worse than death?" This could help PCs spring into combat, if that's what you're wanting them to do.
• If your PCs are stuck on "I can't do it if it's not in the skill list," give them this list, and a LOT more skill proficiencies.
• Every time, literally, that a PC does something cool or interesting, say "you just gained inspiration." Maybe they'll use it more often, and worry less about bad rolls.
• Don't think in terms of "should I allow it?" Instead, think "what would the outcome be?"

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Thank you. I understood this, but it was still well worth pointing out. I was actually convinced early on by 5ekyu's short essay on the topic of skills, and have decided to do this. I am uncoupling all skills from both stats and class/backgrounds and simply allowing the PC's to gain slots which they will freely choose their skills (most characters will thus have 4). Then I will be tying in game skill use to backgrounds. If the PC can make a logical case why their background will allow them to skillfully preform an action I will allow it dependent on the circumstances. The four extra skills represent things the PC's have picked up that are atypical or complimentary of their backgrounds, thus hopefully preventing cookie cutter similarities (ie. all farmers are not the same, all nobles are not the same, etc).

The problem my group is having with getting stuck on what to do has a lot to do with the makeup of the party. Everyone is bright, that isn't the problem, however they overthink absolutely everything to the point of paralysis. There are a great deal of politics and NP interaction in the game, and combats tend to be very dangerous most of the time. Everyone is very attached to their PCs (because I have designed things to encourage this attachment) and no one wants to die. Right now the two party leaders are on vicarages (I'm a seminarian and most of the rpg group are somehow associated with the seminary) and will be returning this Summer, however in the interim the party has suffered from indecision and a great amount of doing very little.

I don't know if changing the skill system will really help here, but I was considering it. Now however, I think I will run with the above idea, but not until the new campaign starts when the two leaders are back from their assignments. The players are having fun, or so they insist, and that is really the important thing.

This thread took on a life of its own, but everyone has been congenial which I very much appreciate. I'm so used to social media where the lowest common denominator is something evolved just beyond pond scum that reading ten pages on a forum of polite conversation is a breath of fresh air.

Politics is fun. This is totally separate from skills specifically but I find it helpful to figure out what the player's goals are when it comes to broad political goals. It's easy to be paralyzed with indecision - mostly because there are so many options but your players don't have all the information that their characters do and they don't know how to proceed.Once you know that, you can help them with an approach.

You want to overthrow the Duke? Here's what you know about him: His vizier is power hungry, his wife is having an affair, etc...

If they take a lot of time planning and enjoy that, I think that is fine. But if you want to move things forward quicker, You might want to introduce some time pressures. Make them feel some urgency.

"the wife of the Duke is a potential ally but you found out she's going to be assassinated tomorrow night"

I'm playing in a politicking game and we spend 4/5 session planning and 1 session 'doing'. We like it and we know we have to be cautious. The DM will randomly throw wrenches in our plotting and force us to act before we're ready. It adds tension.

Has nothing to do with skills, I know.

But to bring it back to your OP, sometimes giving info helps to move things forward and pushes players to action.

I use passive skills a lot. I will use passive History, Arcana, Religion scores as a way of deciding what kind of information a character knows as a baseline.

You don't have to wait on the players to make a decision as to whether or not to research the library, you can use the person with the biggest passive knowledge skill to 'info-dump'.

" If a difficult lock needs picking and there are no time constraints, why bother rolling? "

See, I can think of a lot of reasons, but as soon as I do it hits the conclusion layered into the rest of your post about " pointless" rolling or boring results.

It's kind of a catch 22 definitional thing - whether or not a roll is pointless is determined by the GM, so a GM deciding "I wont call for a roll because it is pointless" is circular logic at best. If I am not gonna call for a roll "why call it a "difficult" lock?

***

"This door is broken (reasons), so you can slide it forward but you see the lock that was there and it looks like a doozey."

I get what you are saying and agree. I don't want to get too nitpicky about an example I randomly came up with as I was making the post. Sometimes locks are in an adventure - pre-written or otherwise - maybe it's on a chest and they already defeated everything. The dc is 20 and the rogue has +8. Given time, they'll open it. I'll just narrate, "It's a tough lock, but after trying for a bit, you unlock it." I don't want to change the narration and say the lock is broken because maybe they might want to keep the chest with the lock intact and use it to store their loot, or put something in it for safekeeping and return for it later etc.... But if there was a magic sword or healing potions inside, and they were hurt, and an ogre was trying to smash the door down, that +8 vs a dc 20 lock is going to make a big difference.

That's all I mean.

 

[5ekyu]

Sure! Let's say that there's a wall a PC wishes to climb. The player's idea is that he wants to sneakily climb the wall in case there's a guard, but the player only addresses the immediate challenge and asks for a check to climb the wall. The GM gets the roll, and narrates a successful climb, but then tells the player that they are spotted at the top by a guard because they weren't being stealthy. Argument, naturally, occurs.

A version of this happened to me, as GM, so it's not outlandish. And, yes, there are absolutely many ways this could have happened differently and avoided the situation. That's really neither here nor there, because I can absolutely say that had I ascertained the goal, it would not have happened. That other possibilities for avoidance exist doesn't undercut my method for making sure it doesn't happen again.

Also, on a failure, I now have more options than just narrating a problem.with climbing. That's still on the table, but I can now thwart the goal as well by doing what I did before, only this time as a failure mode.

Sounds like its too bad the player didnt call for a stealth check while climbing!

More seruously, seems to me bith the examples (one by you and one earlier) are less examples of unstated goals as thry are unststed information on how... How far are you climbing, are you trying to be sneaky...etc and a GM just assuming either the worst or incompetence without asking any more.

Honestly, both cases would have been resolved without a problem by including **more** reference to game mechanics in the player statement.

I climb 25 feet up the 30 foot wall - tells the gm you arent climbing out to be spotted.

I climb the wall, using my steath skill, is that gonna be disadvantaged while climbing?

Perhaps that a thing worth considering

**does the more one divorces the player from using the game mechanics in descriptions actually lead to a greater risk of a natural language "gotcha" hapoening, given these GMs seem to,not ask follow-up questions before jumping to their narratives that cause problems (based on the examples they provide.)**

I know i have never had a moment,like that stealth climb when a player said "he makes a stealth check" while moving - that spoken mechanic told us both he was trying to be quiet.

 

[5ekyu]

Politics is fun. This is totally separate from skills specifically but I find it helpful to figure out what the player's goals are when it comes to broad political goals. It's easy to be paralyzed with indecision - mostly because there are so many options but your players don't have all the information that their characters do and they don't know how to proceed.Once you know that, you can help them with an approach.

You want to overthrow the Duke? Here's what you know about him: His vizier is power hungry, his wife is having an affair, etc...

If they take a lot of time planning and enjoy that, I think that is fine. But if you want to move things forward quicker, You might want to introduce some time pressures. Make them feel some urgency.

"the wife of the Duke is a potential ally but you found out she's going to be assassinated tomorrow night"

I'm playing in a politicking game and we spend 4/5 session planning and 1 session 'doing'. We like it and we know we have to be cautious. The DM will randomly throw wrenches in our plotting and force us to act before we're ready. It adds tension.

Has nothing to do with skills, I know.

But to bring it back to your OP, sometimes giving info helps to move things forward and pushes players to action.

I use passive skills a lot. I will use passive History, Arcana, Religion scores as a way of deciding what kind of information a character knows as a baseline.

You don't have to wait on the players to make a decision as to whether or not to research the library, you can use the person with the biggest passive knowledge skill to 'info-dump'.



I get what you are saying and agree. I don't want to get too nitpicky about an example I randomly came up with as I was making the post. Sometimes locks are in an adventure - pre-written or otherwise - maybe it's on a chest and they already defeated everything. The dc is 20 and the rogue has +8. Given time, they'll open it. I'll just narrate, "It's a tough lock, but after trying for a bit, you unlock it." I don't want to change the narration and say the lock is broken because maybe they might want to keep the chest with the lock intact and use it to store their loot, or put something in it for safekeeping and return for it later etc.... But if there was a magic sword or healing potions inside, and they were hurt, and an ogre was trying to smash the door down, that +8 vs a dc 20 lock is going to make a big difference.

That's all I mean.

"I don't want to change the narration and say the lock is broken because..."

Likely its me not understanding but, where is this about changing the narration?

When i placed the chest i decided is it locked, broken, easy, hard, etc. There was no "changing" there it was defining. There wadnt a chest in any state that i changed.

After rhey get going, its known, well established rules in my game, that attempts and actions **can** change things. If not, why take actions?

Its also known that a failed ability check can lead to setbacks. A perfectly plausible result from a failed attempt at a difficult lock DC 20 (hard) would be the lock gets jammed or broken and cannot get picked (or maybe now its partially damaged, disadvantage applies and another failure can break it. Obviously, these can come with info that can be helpful - like its a dwarven lock - that ties into other elements.

To me its not changinga narrative other than just applying the results of an attempted action to the scene.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

"I don't want to change the narration and say the lock is broken because..."

Likely its me not understanding but, where is this about changing the narration?

When i placed the chest i decided is it locked, broken, easy, hard, etc. There was no "changing" there it was defining. There wadnt a chest in any state that i changed.

After rhey get going, its known, well established rules in my game, that attempts and actions **can** change things. If not, why take actions?

Its also known that a failed ability check can lead to setbacks. A perfectly plausible result from a failed attempt at a difficult lock DC 20 (hard) would be the lock gets jammed or broken and cannot get picked (or maybe now its partially damaged, disadvantage applies and another failure can break it. Obviously, these can come with info that can be helpful - like its a dwarven lock - that ties into other elements.

To me its not changinga narrative other than just applying the results of an attempted action to the scene.

I misunderstood. I thought you were changing the narrative from a dc 20 lock to a broken lock.

I made or am following an adventure and it had a chest with dc 20 lock. If I adjudicate that, given a PC skill and knowledge and, given enough time, there probably won’t be a meaningful consequence to failing, I won’t call for a roll. I may adjudicate there will be a consequence or setback to failure and therefore Will call for a roll.

If a player says, “I want to pick the lock!” I say, “knock yourself out. “. Whether or not there is a consequence I’ll probably have them roll because that’s the player communicating to me that they want to do something cool with their character or show off a talent or specialty.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"But before getting to the top, I'd like to stop and get a good [look around]"

Sorry but to me that isnt a goal, its not why you are climbing or what you are trying to achieve. Its telling the GM how far you will go.

Let me finish the quote of mine that you truncated... if a player saying they want their PC to climb the tower most of the way to get a good look around before summitting isn't an action and a goal, then I'm not sure what is. And perhaps that doesn't even matter because our job, as DMs, is not to tell the player what their actions and goals should be, it's to adjudicate them in the context of the scene. If the action and/or goal seem incomplete, of course the DM can - and should - prod for more. Clarity is at the heart of this playstyle. And please let's not mistake clarity for "magic words" as has been bandied about before.

But in fact if it was a 5e game, the awkward moment was the GM ****skipping**** the stage where the player gets to choose the KO or kill decision when the creature hits zero.

As this is the D&D 5th Edition forum, of course we can assume it is a 5e game. Again, it is up to the player to describe their action and goal so there is no confusion - and the DM to prompt them if it is unclear. In combat, there is lots of short-hand going on. Attack rolls can assumed most of the time, not called for by the DM. Killing blows are assumed most of the time, so clarification is not necessary. It's the players responsibility to declare the desire for a knock out sometime during the combat - it's not on the DM to suggest courses of action for the PC in combat, or any other time, really. So, yeah, no awkward moment unless the player doesn't say how this attack is different. Keep in mind, we're not looking to set up "gotchas", we're looking for fluidity in game play and everyone at the table contributes to that. If a player retroactively says "Oh, I meant to knock it out not kill it" since they forgot to state the goal, well that's fine, it's just not fluid. This playstyle isn't about being a jerk DM as some like to paint it as.

Not to sound CR but you skipped the "how do you want to do this?" step 5e actually has when your melee attacks reduce monsters to zero.

The DM is in charge of narrating the results of the adventurers' actions - and as part of that, the DM can elect to have the player narrate instead, as in the case of taking down a foe. I don't see where this is prescribed that the DM must ask the player "how do you want to do this" after a successful blow that brings a monster to 0 HP - but perhaps I missed it and you can point it out. Regardless, it can get old if you are asking the same player how they used their sword differently this time to take down the 5th orc they've killed in the battle.

 

[twofalls]

But, I do not think that this is your problem. Quite blunty, your issue appears to be one of communication and framing. And, it's common, but not altogether easy to fix. The issue is that you are not providing enough information so that the players can tell what's at stake and what's possible. There's a huge information disparity in D&D and it's sometimes hard to see from the GM side. You know all the important details, but the players don't. What's obvious to you isn't to them, and it's hard to "forget" things and put yourself in their shoes to see it. I heartily recommend erring on the side of oversharing information.

I've actually considered this several times. I thought that perhaps in some way I was failing them by not giving them enough to grasp onto. I do give a lot of hints, but I'm very leery of stealing the party's success by giving away too much, leaving them feeling that they are just pursuing a color by number adventure. When the leaders were there this wasn't an issue, but you may be right on the money with regards to how I've been handling the rest of the group without them. I don't wish to overemphasize the "leaders", I call them that only because these two guys grasped things quickly and were quick to some action, even if it was the "wrong" action, it was movement, and I can work with that. However since they have been gone it's been a great deal more difficult. I will consider your criticism as confirmation that this might be what is going on and try to provide what feels like too much information to me and see how that pans out over the next two sessions. I am very sandbox and don't run many dungeons/linear stories, that may also be a problem. This group may need more of that rather than less.

Edit: BTW, you were very careful and diplomatic in offering your criticism and I'm appreciative of that. I realize you can never tell how someone will react to constructive criticism, but I very much appreciate your being willing to provide it. Anything that helps my game is a gift. So thanks.

 

[iserith]

I am very sandbox and don't run many dungeons/linear stories, that may also be a problem. This group may need more of that rather than less.

Yeah, man, get them into a dungeon. There is no better place for players to gain confidence in decision-making. Plus, going into the underworld, facing your fears, and coming away with knowledge and gold to bring back to the community is part of the hero's journey. It will resonate and they may not even know why. Save the faction-based politicking for later, I say!

 

[5ekyu]

Let me finish the quote of mine that you truncated... if a player saying they want their PC to climb the tower most of the way to get a good look around before summitting isn't an action and a goal, then I'm not sure what is. And perhaps that doesn't even matter because our job, as DMs, is not to tell the player what their actions and goals should be, it's to adjudicate them in the context of the scene. If the action and/or goal seem incomplete, of course the DM can - and should - prod for more. Clarity is at the heart of this playstyle. And please let's not mistake clarity for "magic words" as has been bandied about before.



As this is the D&D 5th Edition forum, of course we can assume it is a 5e game. Again, it is up to the player to describe their action and goal so there is no confusion - and the DM to prompt them if it is unclear. In combat, there is lots of short-hand going on. Attack rolls can assumed most of the time, not called for by the DM. Killing blows are assumed most of the time, so clarification is not necessary. It's the players responsibility to declare the desire for a knock out sometime during the combat - it's not on the DM to suggest courses of action for the PC in combat, or any other time, really. So, yeah, no awkward moment unless the player doesn't say how this attack is different. Keep in mind, we're not looking to set up "gotchas", we're looking for fluidity in game play and everyone at the table contributes to that. If a player retroactively says "Oh, I meant to knock it out not kill it" since they forgot to state the goal, well that's fine, it's just not fluid. This playstyle isn't about being a jerk DM as some like to paint it as.



The DM is in charge of narrating the results of the adventurers' actions - and as part of that, the DM can elect to have the player narrate instead, as in the case of taking down a foe. I don't see where this is prescribed that the DM must ask the player "how do you want to do this" after a successful blow that brings a monster to 0 HP - but perhaps I missed it and you can point it out. Regardless, it can get old if you are asking the same player how they used their sword differently this time to take down the 5th orc they've killed in the battle.

From last to first...

DND 5e rules in the PHB state
"Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable."

That makes it clear that when a creature is dropped to zero by melee attacks the attack can choose to Ko instead of kill.

yes, the Gms job is to narrate the results but that does not mean skipping past choices the player can make that alter the outcome.

point is, it was the Gm choice to skip over the stage where the player can choose (by RAW) that led to your allegedly "awkward" case of the Gm jumping to the wrong conclusion. This is not a case of a player not stating his goal when he should, but of the Gm not asking when the choice was there for the player.

OBVIOUSLY if the table has agreed to a house rule which says these have to be pre-declared before each attack - the player cannot know it will be a drop-to-zero before the attack and so must declare every time - things change but thats the house rule issue.

But for 5e - the minimum extent of "how do you want to do this" is - "Are you going to KO?" when the zero hit occurs.

First case - sorry but the point made was the player could just as well had declared the distance they travel up the wall, where they stop and *not* what they intended to do once they got their.

its was an incomplete ACTION declaration - "how far do you climb" - not a lack of statement of whats in the mind of the character.

Like i said, if a player tells me their character walks down the corridor towards the T intersection - i need to know "how far" to resolve that action, not "what is he thinking about doing once he gets there." I cannot imagine circumstances in which i as Gm would "gotcha" him by having his character just walk out into the corridor and get spotted without him having given me more info.

It seems like the term goal here is being used more in the manner of describing the action and that the assumption really being put forth is that without that stated the Gm *will* move straight to a means in which that bites the character. yet at the same time its oh so greatly protested as "not gotcha" and "not magic words".

Me, i just show them in play and by simply asking "how far?" a few times early on if i need to.

But, in fact, i find that when the players-to-Gm conversation *includes* game mechanical info like "move 25'" or "making stealth check or using stealth" these examples are practically eliminated.

So, in my experience, your climb 25' up a 30' wall is resolved the same whether or not your goal is to peek over the top or to ferret out a item from the cliff thats only 25' up. You as a player told me how far you wanted to climb - knowing you do need to define "where" when you say "i move".

Again i come back to that the more one forces the players away from the mechanics, it seems the more they are opened up to getting these "GM decides how to resolve" that go against them - based on the examples provided.

But thats just me, perhaps.

 

[twofalls]

Yeah, man, get them into a dungeon. There is no better place for players to gain confidence in decision-making. Plus, going into the underworld, facing your fears, and coming away with knowledge and gold to bring back to the community is part of the hero's journey. It will resonate and they may not even know why. Save the faction-based politicking for later, I say!

I'm describing my game here, so if you aren't interested in reading that, you may want to stop here. Fair warning.

So the politics are a definite part of the game. I'm running a very home brew version of the Tomb of Annihilation, but I've added so much of my own material that they are 5th level and haven't even started to explore the jungle yet (this was intentional). The game is almost a year old. I turned Zindar into a full Gold Dragon guardian of the Port who has been apolitical until recently. I made the PC's his factors (the first he has had in living memory) and sent them after the pirates, which has been the majority of the game to date. I created this situation to give the players a patron who can guide them a bit because they were floundering about trying to decide what to do. Also, one of the PC's is a member of a noble household who is basically dating a jungle scamp (his RL wife), and so I decided to turn that into a scandal and a theme in the game. Politics figure prominently in the game but do not predominate. The fact that Zindar has factors now has turned the city into a brewers vat of political maneuvering between the princes with the PC's and their city contacts as pawns.

I have made General Ras Nsi reach across Chult more powerful and turned the pirate operation into a Yuan-ti directed attempt by him to bring Nyanzaru to its knees by preying on merchant shipping. The PC's were contracted by Zindar to find the source of the pirates who have been heavily raiding shipping and taking prisoners and loot, and they successfully raided the pirates cove at Jahaka Anchorage. There they have disrupted but not destroyed the pirates operations, eliminating Cptns Lankilar and Al-Saryak and capturing the Stirge (which has been refitted and repaired and now is in the PC's hands). Cptn Elok Jaharwon and the Dragonfang (his ship) are still at large and are a recurring enemy. I created a Yuan-ti outpost on one of the Daughter Isles and they found information at Jahaka indicating that all captured prisoners (including some people the PC's know) have been taken there by the pirates. The outpost is fronted by a pirate/slavers haven named Silvershore where Pureblood Yuan-ti disguised as slavers purchase human cargo and send them up to the Manor house (a place of shadows and fear to the residents of Silvershore) where they are never heard from again. The entire operation supports the pirates and slavers operating in the sea of Chult with the aim of damaging the Port's mercantile business so badly that Ras Nsi can over run the Port with more of his undead minions. Prisoners taken to the Manor are ritually sacrificed to Dendar the Night Mother in a cave temple complex under the fortified Manor.

The PC's have used the Stirge to sail to the Daughter Isles and have penetrated the jungle there to the Manor which they assaulted last game, setting off a general alarm. Exhausted of HP and spells they are beating a retreat into the jungle to rest up, setting ablaze as much as they can of the upper story of the Manor (its made of stone with wood supports) to discourage pursuit.

Unbeknownst to them Cptn Elok in the Dragonfang encountered the refitted Stirge which was anchored offshore waiting for the successful return of the PC's from their raid and a battle ensued. Both ships were damaged and forced to retreat, and now Elok is at Silvershore and the smoke from the Manor will alert the town of trouble at the mansion. I've decided that an escaped slave named "Mahala-Mahala" (Free Free in Zulu) who is living as a hermit in the jungle will become a savior of sorts as the PC's, wounded and harried by Yuan-ti/Pirate search parties, will find shelter and information from him.

So the cave complex beneath the Manor is a small dungeon for them to explore. The first in the game to date.

And there is where we are at this point. Thanks for humoring me.