These have all worked fairly well, but I find myself missing skills and proficiencies players really want to use. For example, the rogue in my game noted that I rarely call for an Acrobatics check. And the Barbarian said he rarely gets to use Survival.
Have the players describe what they want their character to do first. If they describe their actions in a way that makes sense for them to use acrobatics or survival, let them.
What I'm thinking of doing is only calling for Abilities, not Skills. I'll call for a Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma check, and then the Player will choose whatever Skill or Proficiency is appropriate.
They will inevitably only ever use their best skills and/or tools.
For example, if a character wants to look for something, I call for a Wisdom check. It's up to the player if they are using, say, Perception, Investigation, Survival, or some appropriate Tool (with DM approval, of course).
Those are wildly different activities. Perception, Investigation, Survival, and tool use. Are you looking for tracks, that's survival. Are you trying to recognize a tree from quite a long way away? That's nature...perhaps limited by perception, i.e. their total bonus to the roll for nature can't be higher than their perception.
Player: Vanger the Ranger tells the goblin boss to retreat before he gets his clan killed.
DM: Go ahead and make a Charisma Check.
Player: Can I use Persuasion?
DM: Yep!
I allow strength to be used with intimidation. It just makes sense. Persuasion is different from intimidation, which are both different than deception. Starting by telling the player which stat seems backwards. It would make more sense to have the description of what they're doing inform the skill and stat pick.
Meaning if the player describes their barbarian showing off their muscles and threatening the goblins (trying to get them to retreat), having them make a strength (intimidation) check makes sense. You could make the same argument for a rogue using dexterity. Or a wizard flicking a few fire bolts and using intelligence. Some combos just don't make sense though.
Player: What does Wornok the Warlock know about these ruins?
DM: Go ahead and make an Intelligence Check.
Player: Can I use Arcana?
DM: Eh, that wouldn't be appropriate for this roll.
As you point out. Some skills just don't apply to certain circumstances.
Player: Bartimer the Artificer wants to help guide the wagon over the bridge without hitting any rotting boards.
DM: Go ahead and make a Dexterity check.
Player: Can I use my proficiency in Vehicles?
DM: Absolutely!
Strength also makes sense. As would animal handling. To me, you're putting the cart before the horse. The description of what the character is doing comes first. The what, the why, and the how. Without those you can't make a call on what the appropriate skill or stat combo to use. But once the player describes their action, that will tell you exactly what stat and skill to use. Or you tell them no, that doesn't make sense. "Sorry, Bob. You can't flex at the librarian then expect to use strength and history to intimidate them."
My goals with this would be:
1. Giving players more agency and control with using their skills and proficiencies.
2. Allowing the characters to be heroic and do things they are good at more often.
3. Sharing the narrative burden with players.
Good description of actions from the players up front accomplishes all three in spades.
One thing to note is that, in general, I trust my players not to "game the system" and try to use Athletics for every single check.
This will change quickly. If you let them do whatever, they'll laser focus on their best stats and skills all the time, every time. You'll have to argue with them to get them to stop.
At the same time, if they have invested heavily in Athletics, I want to reward them for coming up with creative ways to solve problems using Athletics.
Absolutely. Just front load the situation. Have them describe what they're doing first, and if they describe their character solving the problem with athletics, let them roll it. It puts the onus of creativity on them, lets them be creative, but also limits their ability to game the system by making them try to justify some combo first...rather than asking permission, then trying to explain it.
What do you think? Do you think this would work?
If you flipped it around and had them describe their actions in detail first, you'll know what stat and skill they want to use.
Do you usually call for skills, abilities, or both?
I have the players describe things first. Based on the players' description, I call for skills and abilities. The players learn pretty quickly that if they want to use a stat or skill they have to describe it in a way that makes sense up front. Just double check with them to confirm. "That sounds like you're trying to use [stat] with [skill]. Is that right?" Based on the answer, work it out from there.