I want my actions to matter

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I am one of the clumsiest people that I know, and have poor catch reflexes and a poor ability to throw things so as to hit targets. Nor do I have particularly good balance. But I am a reasonably competent commuter cyclist. So cycling does not seem to depend heavily on some of the core capabilities that D&D groups under DEX.

So we'll never throw darts for money is what you're telling me?

@Ulorian - Agent of Chaos, I take your point about not having learned to swim at all. So let me add to my earlier post: in the world of D&D, every fighter - as they are learning to shoot, and jump, and fence, also learns to swim. Then they develop their core physical abilities as they do whatever it is in the fiction that corresponds to gaining levels on the PC sheet. And this is what the STR stat and the Athletics skill represent.

This is one way to cover this 'real world gap' in game. Seeing as fighter types are the characters most likely to be investing in the Athletics skill, this covers 99% of the situations that crop up in game. I like it.

If we want a NPC who can fence but not shoot, or who can climb but not swim, nothing stops the GM creating that person. But that person is ruled out as a PC, just as the character build rules exclude many other possibilities that we can imagine, because the designers take those possibilities not to conduce to good game play.

Covers 99% of the remaining 1%. Ship it. Doesn't account for a PC wanting to be that non-musketeer though Does this gap ever exposed in actual play though? I would think in the super rarely to never range. However, this does break the 4th wall for the verisimilitude crowd. To me, the simplicity by far outweighs any issues caused by corner cases, but it's nice if everyone can be happy.

 

[pemerton]

So we'll never throw darts for money is what you're telling me?

This is one way to cover this 'real world gap' in game. Seeing as fighter types are the characters most likely to be investing in the Athletics skill, this covers 99% of the situations that crop up in game. I like it.

Covers 99% of the remaining 1%. Ship it. Doesn't account for a PC wanting to be that non-musketeer though Does this gap ever exposed in actual play though? I would think in the super rarely to never range. However, this does break the 4th wall for the verisimilitude crowd. To me, the simplicity by far outweighs any issues caused by corner cases, but it's nice if everyone can be happy.

There will always be some issue, though. Rolemaster has a very long skill list, but only 10 stats, and so being innately good at animal empathy also makes you innately good at attuning to magic (both use EM).

Burning Wheel has a long skill list, and does not include stats in skill bonuses (when you learn a skill, it is factored off one of six stats, but then advances independently). But there is still grouping that can be objected to: eg Cooking skill doesn't differentiate between baking and frying.

 

[MNblockhead]

The problem with seeking verisimilitude with character skills in TTRPGs, in my experience, is that you could have thousands of skills, yet anyone with even a bit of expertise and experience in an area are going to be able to poke holes in it. There is always going to need to be a great deal of abstraction.

Personally, I find more abstract rule systems better for immersion. I can imagine the details rather than game making me break them down.

Yet, at the same time, I also find it mechanically fun to have a bunch of widgets to play with. Currently, I'm really liking all the character-building options in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e. But it is more mechanically fun for me after years of DnD 5e. I wouldn't say it is any more immersive for me and it certainly isn't more "realistic" to me in any meaningful way.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

There will always be some issue, though. Rolemaster has a very long skill list, but only 10 stats, and so being innately good at animal empathy also makes you innately good at attuning to magic (both use EM).

Burning Wheel has a long skill list, and does not include stats in skill bonuses (when you learn a skill, it is factored off one of six stats, but then advances independently). But there is still grouping that can be objected to: eg Cooking skill doesn't differentiate between baking and frying.

The number of games ended/tears shed/lives destroyed over baking vs. frying... don't get me started. I don't know if any system, alive or yet to be, would handle these nuances satisfactorily. I honestly think the best solution is to do what I think we've both been saying: ad lib over or through the scenarios where this difference makes a difference (where 'makes a difference' is most definitely in the eye of the beholder).

 

[pemerton]

The number of games ended/tears shed/lives destroyed over baking vs. frying... don't get me started.

Personally, I feel the same about swimming vs climbing!

 

[MNblockhead]

Personally, I feel the same about swimming vs climbing!

I can see where you are coming from. I've never had an issue with D&D 5e's skills and just make up my own logic for when and why one attribute or skill over another can be used.

I tend to get more annoyed with how torches are portrayed and used in the game, firearm rules (in other systems than DnD, I haven't use firearms in 5e), and silly geography.

But it's hard to design games around pet peeves.

 

[Maxperson]

I am one of the clumsiest people that I know, and have poor catch reflexes and a poor ability to throw things so as to hit targets. Nor do I have particularly good balance. But I am a reasonably competent commuter cyclist. So cycling does not seem to depend heavily on some of the core capabilities that D&D groups under DEX.

All that means is that the dex check to learn to ride is low, not that there isn't one. Riding a bike is balance, which is dex not con. Riding the bike is dex, however low the check. Con can only determine how far you can go, not if you can ride or not.

 

[pemerton]

I can see where you are coming from. I've never had an issue with D&D 5e's skills and just make up my own logic for when and why one attribute or skill over another can be used.

I think you may have misconstrued me: I was agreeing with @Ulorian - Agent of Chaos, in the sense that I don't find swimming vs climbing any more of an issue than baking vs frying. I don't play 5e D&D, but had no issues at all with 4e's Athletics skill.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Like I said in the skill thread a while a go, I actually find the opposite caused by excessive skill splitting more jarring to verisimilitude: you can be master with a longsword, but when given a katana you're completely helpless. Certain competencies are related, and whilst in real life one can specialise rather narrowly, competency in one area still also increases competency in related stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like I said in the skill thread a while a go, I actually find the opposite caused by excessive skill splitting more jarring to verisimilitude: you can be master with a longsword, but when given a katana you're completely helpless. Certain competencies are related, and whilst in real life one can specialise rather narrowly, competency in one area still also increases competency in related stuff.

You can handle that with a skill system too.