DMs, Do You Pander To Player Skills?

[VoiceOfReason?]

I find that by concentrating on putting int/wis based skills into my adventures, everything gets covered. Physical skills get used regularly enough that no attention is needed, and I include enough RP element in every game that not having some cha based skill points can put a PC at a disadvantage.

 

[Acid_crash]

I don't pander to the characters but I always try to come up with situations in which the more unused skills would come into play. I didn't realize this until I ran a one month shot of d6 Fantasy which is entirely skill based, including combat skills, and I used a variety of skills that I would never have used (and types of actions taken for granted in D&D/d20) like...

Running, a skill which determines how far you can run in one turn and keep your footing instead of just arbitraily determing how far you can go (or double move, or run) like in d20... Running had a difficulty based on how far you wanted to run, the terrain modifier for how difficult the terrain was, and if you succeeded, then you could run 40 meters in one round and still make an attack roll, of course at a penalty.

This kind of roll would never, ever, be seen in D&D because running 40 meters in equivalent of the Run option, in which you don't get your defense nor can you attack.

After running that game, it made me think of how d20/D&D focuses on skills, and the seperation of combat from skills is one of the major faults of the system because it focuses the character on combat and not on skills. Major snaffu in system design.

I think, if I ever run D&D again, I am going to convert it to more like d6 Fantasy from WEG... all the skills in d6 will be the skills in my D&D game, and all classes will be changed so, in addition to the Base attack bonus, which won't go up as much, there will be a Base defense bonus, reputation, etc...

But... as far as how I run games now... I wouldn't just pander to the characters. I would come up with situations that their skills would be useful, and sometimes (at first if they are getting used to the system) I would give them hints... but if they are experienced with the system, then the situations I come up with are theirs to discover. If they miss it, so be it.

 

[Amaroq]

I'd say 'definitely', I want to give the character a chance to explore his/her new abilities; its a way to ensure that everyone has a chance to 'shine'.

However, on the flip side, "If nobody has the required skill, too bad," I can certainly see that from a DM's perspective, but from a player's perspective the combination of the two was really annoying. In a recent dungeon, our DM had either found or designed a creature which would really cater to a certain character, really giving him the chance to shine. The first session after we entered the dungeon, said player stopped showing up... and the absence of his particular skill meant that these creatures were notably more difficult. This turned what was designed as a two-session dungeon into a five-month crawl which just got interminably boring for some of the players.

So, use with caution.

 

[just__al]

In otherwords, if players have invested ranks in a skill, particularly an 'obscure' skill, do you try to ensure they have an opportunity to use it?

For example, would you go out of your way to have an item that initially appeared valueless but gave the character with +10 Appraise a chance to say "But no! This seemingly plain goblet is in fact an antique from the Gorg dynasty and collectors will pay up to 1,000gp for it!"? Or a map written in code that just happens to need the Decipher Script ranks the character so kindly invested in?

As primarily a player at the moment, I like the ability to use skills I've invested in - if the DM makes an effort to help them be useful it's great, but on the other hand it could be seen as 'contrived' to do this too much.

As I will be DMing soon, I'm interested to know how other DMs have handled this.

When I DM I endeavor to the following for each character

10% of the time, you are the character that needs to deal with the situation, without you the party would be very hard pressed to succeed
10% of the time, you are really at a severe disadvantage being who you are. Not a big deal though, you probably didn't come alone.
10% of the time, you make an equal contribution to the group, in fact, your contribution is essential to success but it's not the only needed piece of the puzzle, everybody has a role
70% of the time, things are really up in the air, nobody is partically "the man" but nobody is sitting on their hands

To that end, my characters leave me their character sheet between sessions (or at least a copy) and I look them over when planning sessions for any hidden gems (no, not literally) that could come up in the next session.

 

[Fenes]

Yes, within reason.

 

[The Shaman]

No. The world is what it is - if the players don't have certain skills, then it's up to them to acquire the expertise by some other means.

Can't read the map? Find someone with that language skill or Decipher Script.

Not sure if that brass jar is worth anything? Ask a merchant to Appraise it for you.

Up a river without a paddler? Hire a guide with Profession (sailor).

Think the door might be trapped? Ask the barbarian to open it. (He probably has the highest CON score, after all...)

 

[Altalazar]

I don't "pander" to player's skills, but I keep them in mind when designing adventures. But that is part of the general "tracking" I do of players and their characters, backgrounds, etc. to make sure that the situations are relevant and interesting.

I've found, though, that good players will come up with creative ways to make their obscure skills come in handy - that often surprise me and provide great fun, whether they work or not.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I play it fairly close to the way Umbran described. There are some skills which just aren't going to come up very often. One of my own characters took Profession: Chef. That doesn't mean that I expect to play a session transformed into Iron Chef just to take advantage of that. I took the skill for flavor (no pun intended), and don't expect to use it very often.

But that being said, there are a lot of skills that are somewhat obscure, but can be incorporated into the game in a non-contrived way. Decipher Script, Balance, certain Knowledge skills, etc. I do try to put these skills to use.

Truth be told, I try and incorporate skill checks as often as I can. Jump, Climb, Balance, Swim... One of my proudest moments of a previous (3.0) campaign was working in Innuendo on a regular basis.

 

[coyote6]

I try to at least keep 'em in mind, especially if they've invested a significant number of points in the skill. Same with rangers' favored enemies, etc.

Of course, it all depends if I remember that somebody has a particular skill.

I don't think many of the PCs have particularly "non-standard" skills, at least not beyond a couple-three ranks; too few skill points to go around, I guess. One PC has at least one rank in every one of the canonical Knowledge skills, IIRC.

I planted a pirate treasure map for the current adventure, in large part because one PC has ranks in Prof (Sailor). I just have to get rid of more of the crew of the ship they're on, so she can make the vital rolls.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I like to give players a chance to use their skills, but normally I try to set up situations where multiple avenues are available to them.

For example:

Local bandits, backed by arms and finances from Romanda, have stolen a powerful grimoire being transported by Shrine Knights. The PCs, agents of the Ivalician Crown, are sent in to steal the book of magic from foes foreign and domestic.

To discover the bandit camp, they can track the bandits (Search and Survival), disguise themselves as merchants to get a captive (Disguise, combat and Intimidate), find info on the local rebel grapevine (Bluff, Diplomacy and Gather Information), or risk the sanity-destroying effects of spellcasting to scry.

Having found the camp, they then need to get in. The camp is located in deep woods, set into a cliff face cave. The PCs can attack head-on (combat), search for a back entrance (Survival, Spot, Search and Knowledge: Nature), capture a sentry (Hide, Move Silently, combat and Intimidate), sneak in at night (Hide, Move Silently) or disguise themselves as bandits (Disguise and Bluff).

Inside the bandit camp, they come to a room where, if they come in normally, they'll be in a killing pit with firearm-equipped bandits above them. They can fight through (combat), climb to the upper level (Climb or very good Jump), find a trapped secret passage to the upper level (Search and Disable Device), or kill the bandits from outside with a barrel bomb (Craft: Explosives).

Incidentally, I don't allow players to take Craft: Basketweaving, it's just too broken. Ever see how many of the CharOp regulars on the WotC boards can max it out?