Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ferghis" data-source="post: 5954992" data-attributes="member: 40483">I agree that a defined skill list would be better, but I really believe there is a step to examine BEFORE you get to determining a skill list: what do you want skills to do? When I think about that question, I usually (I'm not that consistent) end up with the answer that I want them to do something very concrete, such as provide the character with one particular bit of knowledge, or get an NPC to react in a specific way once, or manipulate a non-character threat in a specific way once, and so on. I don't want a character to roll high on diplomacy and gain a friend for life: I want them to use negotiate and hope to get the NPC to do ONE nice thing for them. I don't want a character to use streetwise and gain access to an entire secret shop of illegal goods: I want the character use scrounge and find one specific illegal item they were specifically looking for. And so on. Skills should be defined so they have a small but measurable impact on the game. I think that one of the problems that skills have posed in D&amp;D is that a lot of people don't know how to apply them. And while the notion of leaving them vague so that each playing group can make what they want of them has some merit, it ends up leaving most people less than satisfied: after four editions of different skill-rules iterations, I've yet to see a &quot;skill challenge&quot; mechanic that really works well. My inclination, at this point, is to try making skills more specific in the results they want to achieve. To be clear, I'm not advocating for a large number of skills, just better defined ones that have a mechanic that offers a more discrete result.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ferghis, post: 5954992, member: 40483"] I agree that a defined skill list would be better, but I really believe there is a step to examine BEFORE you get to determining a skill list: what do you want skills to do? When I think about that question, I usually (I'm not that consistent) end up with the answer that I want them to do something very concrete, such as provide the character with one particular bit of knowledge, or get an NPC to react in a specific way once, or manipulate a non-character threat in a specific way once, and so on. I don't want a character to roll high on diplomacy and gain a friend for life: I want them to use negotiate and hope to get the NPC to do ONE nice thing for them. I don't want a character to use streetwise and gain access to an entire secret shop of illegal goods: I want the character use scrounge and find one specific illegal item they were specifically looking for. And so on. Skills should be defined so they have a small but measurable impact on the game. I think that one of the problems that skills have posed in D&D is that a lot of people don't know how to apply them. And while the notion of leaving them vague so that each playing group can make what they want of them has some merit, it ends up leaving most people less than satisfied: after four editions of different skill-rules iterations, I've yet to see a "skill challenge" mechanic that really works well. My inclination, at this point, is to try making skills more specific in the results they want to achieve. To be clear, I'm not advocating for a large number of skills, just better defined ones that have a mechanic that offers a more discrete result. [/QUOTE]

Verification