D&D 5E A more dynamic skill system?

[Beleriphon]

Perception, a forensic skill, an autopsy skill, an interview skill, an interrogation skill (for when the PCs get frustrated and start breaking fingers), a drawing skill (if an era without cameras), a camera skill (for an era with cameras), should cover the basics.

Okay. I perhaps wasn't clear. I don't care what the skills are called specifically. But lets say we have an interview skill of some kind. What does it do? If I roll and succeed what does it provide? Do I need to roll, if not what do I get?

 

[Jd Smith1]

A character trained in Medicine presumably has that training. Or at least a close enough approximation thereof.

In the real world I write software and have no medical background unless you want to count high school bio. But if you show me a body that's been stabbed in the chest, I can hazard a reasonable guess as to why the person died, even if I can't provide a textbook medical examiner's answer. Unless something weird happened, like the person was stabbed, but that didn't kill him so his assailant drowned him, I'm probably going to be correct.

What is the person was poisoned, and then stabbed in the chest postmortem to hide the fact? Could you determine if the stabbing instrument was single or double-edged? And so forth.

I know absolutely squat about software. If I have a hacking issue in a game, its one and done for dice rolls because I know zip. This is why I never GM any sort of cyberpunk games: because I know less than nothing about why the magic boxes respond to pushing buttons. I do know investigations, hence my focus.

Having 20 to 30 clues locked behind checks, many of which are redundant, isn't a terrible way to go. Odds are that the players will be able to succeed at 30-50% of the checks just based on the die roll alone (unless the DCs are really high).

However, you're still locking all the passages in the dungeon and requiring the rogue to pick them so that the party can proceed. There are lots of potential routes but if the party runs a streak of bad luck and flubs all of the doors that they need to proceed, then the dungeon is done.

A reasonable point. However, in my case, locks don't have to be picked. Pry bars and sledgehammers exist. There's always more than one route through a problem in my scenarios.

I run a sandbox, as I've said, but even so I don't like it when my players are frustrated because they can't get any traction nor am I a fan of when my work gets wasted (although that's not as big an issue, since most anything that isn't used can always be recycled down the line).

I play the man, not the ball. In other words I design scenarios, or the motivation for commercial scenarios, with the four keystones of my players in mind (which are greed, spite, petty-mindedness, and irrational relationships with random NPCs). Make it important to them, and they won't get frustrated, IME.

You might have a higher moral caliber at your table, so YRMV.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Okay. I perhaps wasn't clear. I don't care what the skills are called specifically. But lets say we have an interview skill of some kind. What does it do? If I roll and succeed what does it provide? Do I need to roll, if not what do I get?

Ah, I see.

OK, let's hearken back to my Ripper-esque case I mentioned. (Mexico City, 1889) The PCs, in the course of their investigation, are interviewing the inhabitants of a slum in which the killing took place. The PC making the roll for one subject failed to get the subject talking (failed roll), but came away with the impression the man was hiding something (didn't miss by much). So now the player has a piece of information: a local knows something, but is too afraid to say what. This suggests that this wasn't the usual sort of killing on a Saturday night.

Now the players have to figure out a way to get that information. In terms of a locked chest, lock picks may be best, but there are other tools.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That is not understanding fail forward.
When people talk about Fail Forward in RPGs, they mean that failure should not stop the action, and failure should always have interesting consequences.

Interesting. I've never heard it put like that. So, how would 'fail forward' work if, say, a PC failed in an interview with an NPC?

 

[Jd Smith1]

While pondering the many replies to my thread, I realize that I have overlooked a key aspect of the 5e system: toolkits.

Skills can be nuanced by requiring a toolkit, for example performing an autopsy.

I'm going to have to take a hard look at this.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I value role-play rather than roll-play. I feel that a more detailed skill set involves players on a thinking level in investigation or Social situations, rather than "I got a +6 to Char, I'll roll'.

There is a danger in that style of play - player skill overshadowing or replacing character skill. A smooth-talking player can have a character with 8 CHA yet still talk their way out of every situation. You have to ask, why have a CHA stat at all?

It also means players can't have characters smarter or more skilled than they are. What if a shy player actually wants to play a charismatic talker? What if a player who knows nothing about investigation wants to play the great detective?

We don't expect players to learn how to use a sword before they can effectively play a fighter. We certainly don't expect them to learn magic before playing a wizard. Why require it for non-combat skills?

 

[Garthanos]

Interesting. I've never heard it put like that. So, how would 'fail forward' work if, say, a PC failed in an interview with an NPC?

Its rather situational of course for instance it somewhat depends on the purpose of the interview in the first place, maybe the interview was an infiltration and the failure might bring them to the attention of someone else who also wanted the position and who decides they are a rival maybe decides to confront them and drive them off this might reveal another element of the plot line in the process, its a story driven and story driving way of looking at it. (that rival knows something they may need to know or another route to getting closer to some end goal by revealing a vulnerability of the organization).

 

[Jd Smith1]

There is a danger in that style of play - player skill overshadowing or replacing character skill. A smooth-talking player can have a character with 8 CHA yet still talk their way out of every situation. You have to ask, why have a CHA stat at all?

If you met my players, you would know the answer.

It also means players can't have characters smarter or more skilled than they are. What if a shy player actually wants to play a charismatic talker? What if a player who knows nothing about investigation wants to play the great detective?

Shy people do not last at my table, if they get there at all. The core of my group has been with me since 2002, and they vet all newcomers.

We don't expect players to learn how to use a sword before they can effectively play a fighter. We certainly don't expect them to learn magic before playing a wizard. Why require it for non-combat skills?

All my players are combat-ready. We don't encourage slackness.

That's meant in fun, but also sadly true. My group is made up of manly men running manly PCs who do manly things. Usually by the most difficult way possible.

But they show up every week, year in and year out.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Its rather situational of course for instance it somewhat depends on the purpose of the interview in the first place, maybe the interview was an infiltration and the failure might bring them to the attention of someone else who also wanted the position and who decides they are a rival maybe decides to confront them and drive them off this might reveal another element of the plot line in the process, its a story driven and story driving way of looking at it. (that rival knows something they may need to know or another route to getting closer to some end goal by revealing a vulnerability of the organization).

OK, that's not going to work for my group. Thanks for explaining it.

 

[Garthanos]

OK, that's not going to work for my group. Thanks for explaining it.

For me I think of it as the old one door closes another opens somewhere concept (perhaps you can think of doors your group would go for) and the DM thinking ahead for either success or failure.