D&D 5E How can you add more depth and complexity to skill checks?

[Hriston]

I would say ability checks are the exception D&D 4e. It was true in my experience and the Rules Compendium actually says that DMs can differ on whether a Strength check or an Athletics check is appropriate (for example). I think it's probably safe to say most DMs would call for Athletics.

Then given that it sounds like, in 4E, a STR check and an Athletics check are two separate, if somewhat interchangeable, mechanics, I guess it's understandable that to DMs/players that have played that game, the fact that a Strength (Athletics) check, in 5E, is a type of Strength check might be somewhat confusing if they lack the awareness that they are actually playing a different game.

 

[Oofta]

Then given that it sounds like, in 4E, a STR check and an Athletics check are two separate, if somewhat interchangeable, mechanics, I guess it's understandable that to DMs/players that have played that game, the fact that a Strength (Athletics) check, in 5E, is a type of Strength check might be somewhat confusing if they lack the awareness that they are actually playing a different game.

Do you have anything to contribute to the actual conversation or are you just going to continue to snipe about how people aren't playing the game "properly" because they aren't using the correct phrases?

 

[Hriston]

Do you have anything to contribute to the actual conversation or are you just going to continue to snipe about how people aren't playing the game "properly" because they aren't using the correct phrases?

I thought you were done.

 

[Oofta]

I thought you were done.

So no, you aren't going to try to give any helpful advice.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've found in many cases that there is a skill that's clearly relevant, but I can see a few different abilities applying. So I might ask for Athletics with either Str or Dex. I can imagine a situation where someone says they try to get a mount under control and I could see animal handling going with Dex, Wis, or Chr.

I would argue that when this happens, it’s because the player has not made a complete action declaration with a goal and an approach. “Get the horse under control” is a reasonably specific goal, but “try” is not a reasonably specific approach. If the player was more specific about what their character was doing in order to try and get the horse under control, it would be clear whether Dex, Wis, or Cha applied.

I hadn't followed the playtest for 5e, and I agree with your post above that it's sad they made the skills and abilities fixed pairs. Do you have any insight on why the majority didn 't like it?

There were a number of reasons, but if I recall correctly, the big argument was that skills would be paired with the same ability the majority of the time, and coupling them would allow you to pre-calculate the total bonus on the character sheet instead of doing it in your head every time.

 

[Cadence]

I would argue that when this happens, it’s because the player has not made a complete action declaration with a goal and an approach. “Get the horse under control” is a reasonably specific goal, but “try” is not a reasonably specific approach. If the player was more specific about what their character was doing in order to try and get the horse under control, it would be clear whether Dex, Wis, or Cha applied.

That definitely seems right. It's some 10-12 yo's that have been playing for under a dozen sessions. If it doesn't bog things down, I've been trying to suss out what they're doing "trying to make friends with it, or trying to catch it?". I'll work on getting them to offer more detail. If it's something where I want to keep momentum going there've been times I've just given them the choice of abilities to roll. (Some of them have noticable weaknesses and if they were narrating I can see them picking the better of the two).

 

[robus]

I do find this rather frustrating myself. I’m working on a custom character sheet that will address this problem at my own table.

I made one, it’s available here: Simplified Character Sheet

 

[Charlaquin]

I made one, it’s available here: Simplified Character Sheet

I know, I’ve used yours before, and it’s very helpful! I’m working on a more elaborately customized one, but this one has served me well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

The quantum superposition and allowing 'rolls' or other methods for the players to interact with the setting are merely tools for making the world seem real and limitless. In theory I could have extensive encyclopaedic amount of information about the setting that could be uncovered. Like if someone asked about a real world animal I could just open its Wikipedia page and see details about its physiology and behaviour. Well, for a fictional setting I'm not actually going to produce all that beforehand, extra details can be generated as needed. This produces the same outcome, the play area is not artificially restricted, you don't see that the set is just a cardboard cut out by looking it from a new angle. And how this relates to the pacing, is that instead of trying to keep the players 'on the track' and herding them into 'right direction' (which of course still are things that will be subtly done) one can also just alter/create new aspects of the story around the things the players take interest int. Like have you ever had a situation where the players fixate on some throwaway detail you didn't mean to be important and ignore the plot you had preplanned? Well, instead of waiting that the players get the hint that they're wasting their time exploring the dead end or just flat out telling them that, another option is to make the thing they're interested in to be important. This has a lot to do with the pacing. Go with the flow instead of trying to fight against it. This of course again is just one tool in GMs toolbox and should be used sparingly, so please don't start to argue how this leads to directionless gameplay where every item the players show interest in suddenly becomes the One Ring. That's not how it goes. When used in conjunction with more traditional preplanned elements this leads to gameplay where there are no lulls and dead ends, where the story unfolds organically and the world seems real and much larger than it actually is.

And this little tangent of ours has gone for quite a while now without having much to do with the topic of the thread. My stance on skills is that they're an important facet of the characters' capabilities and the players choose them for a reason. Players generally are pleased when they get to use their skills. So let them!

This explanation is orthogonal to the discussion about whether players should be asking for ability checks (or skill checks, if you prefer). I know this because I do this, and just got strongly contested in a different thread for suggesting that no myth or light myth games are possible in 5e. I don't allow players to ask for ability checks AND I rarely have prep to stick to, much less throw out, because I'm already following the fiction. This style of play isn't enabled by letting players ask for skill checks, it works with or without it.

Primarily, the difference I see is that I create fiction in game in response to player actions, you do it when the players ask for a roll and then roll well enough (or poorly enough). There's a bit of an important difference, here, in how we approach the same goal, but that goal doesn't justify either approach, nor does it uniquely enable it. I think there's a pretty big difference in what's generated, though, in that your approach it's the GM that introduces whatever the GM wants when prompted, where I introduce either fiction that aligns with the goal of the PC's action if they succeed or is opposed to it if they fail. The difference, as it appears to me, is who's interests are being served.

As for your last, that's a weird thing to say. It sets up like a strawman, but has just enough plausible deniability because you didn't explicitly say anyone thinks differently. So, either it's a banal non-sequitur statement of agreement (I don't think anyone actually disagrees with this statement at all) or it's a cloaked strawman intending to suggest I don't think players should use their skills. I assure you, the later is highly incorrect -- ability checks and therefore skill use is the engine of my game -- it's the crux of play. I love my players using skills, and they gets miles out of them. Heck, my alt game right now is Blades, which is entirely skill based, so, yeah, a weird thing to say.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This explanation is orthogonal to the discussion about whether players should be asking for ability checks (or skill checks, if you prefer). I know this because I do this, and just got strongly contested in a different thread for suggesting that no myth or light myth games are possible in 5e. I don't allow players to ask for ability checks AND I rarely have prep to stick to, much less throw out, because I'm already following the fiction. This style of play isn't enabled by letting players ask for skill checks, it works with or without it.

I'm sure it does.

Primarily, the difference I see is that I create fiction in game in response to player actions, you do it when the players ask for a roll and then roll well enough (or poorly enough). There's a bit of an important difference, here, in how we approach the same goal, but that goal doesn't justify either approach, nor does it uniquely enable it. I think there's a pretty big difference in what's generated, though, in that your approach it's the GM that introduces whatever the GM wants when prompted, where I introduce either fiction that aligns with the goal of the PC's action if they succeed or is opposed to it if they fail. The difference, as it appears to me, is who's interests are being served.

I of course do both. The players describing what they're doing is vastly more common than them just asking to roll a skill. So sometimes they have more input in the outcome sometimes less. I just don't see much value in being dogmatic about these things.