Game Theories, a series. Ep 1: Non-Adventuring Skills

[eriktheguy]

Game Theories
​

This is my new series about not using house-rules. I've been DMing for about 15 years. One lesson that 4e taught me is to handle situations with fewer rules. Broad and general with specific exceptions can cover almost any situation.

I've also written a lot of house-rules over the years. Introducing house-rules changes how characters work. Experience tells me that players are generally less enthusiastic about rules than the DM. The best house-rules are passive and invisible, applied by the DM without player effort. The worst require action on the part of the PCs, or add a situational change to the rules. These rules bloat bookkeeping and punish players who forget.

I believe we DMs too often try to handle special cases by writing house-rules. I think it best to handle these cases within the framework of the rules whenever possible. My series, Game Theories, will be about just that.

Episode 1: Non-adventuring Skills​

A History of Skills
In general, there are two kinds of skills. Non-adventuring skills such as weaving or mining, and adventuring skills, such as hiding and jumping.
In 2e AD&D, characters had 'non-weapon proficiencies' for non-adventuring skills. Adventuring skills were handled by special rules, ability score checks, and class features. In 3e D&D you spent skill points to learn either adventuring or non-adventuring skills. In 4e D&D we use skills to describe adventuring tasks only. Non-adventuring skills are simply not described in the rules.

Axioms
4e has the best skill system. Players aren't forced to choose between the 'good' skills and the 'interesting' ones, as they were in 3e. Players aren't limited in the number of non-adventuring skills they know by the rules like in 2e. Choosing not to define all skills with the rules was a conscious choice of the designers. They didn't just 'forget' about crafting and sailing and farming. There was a good reason for this.

Propsition
So what do we do when a character wants to know a skill that isn't outlined in the rules, like gem-cutting, baking, or sword-swallowing. How do we apply non-adventuring skills to the game? There are dozens of posts on enworld about how to house-rule craft and perform into the game system. As always, I recommend instead that we incorporate them rule free. Here are my Theories.

Theories
Not a rule: In 4e D&D, non-adventuring skills are not a rule. Your character background can describe any number of interesting talents, niche interests, or obscure hobbies that you want.

The DM's best friend: Don't forget that you can always give a player +2 to a skill check for favorable conditions. A relevant non-adventuring skill can definitely count as a favorable condition. A gem-cutter deserves +2 to their thievery check to replace the jewels in a tiara with fakes, or to identify such fakes.

Skill checks: You can also let players make skill checks to accomplish things. DMs ask players for skill checks all the time, granting one to a character with a relevant non-adventuring skill is just as legitimate. The group's treasure hunter might get a history check to know of a forgotten relic buried in a temple they are exploring.

Benefits: You can give players benefits without requiring skill checks. The players visit a military camp full of depressed and weary soldiers. The master chef in the party prepares an exquisite meal with his personal spices. They earn the favor of the camp (perhaps a few soldiers on the next mission, a blessing from the priest, or a free success in an upcoming skill challenge).

Corollaries
Let the players make offers: Let players try to earn the benefits above by suggesting ways to use their non-adventuring skills. It may take them a few sessions to realize you are allowing this.
Keep it situational: When you grant a benefit, always ask yourself "Is this repeatable? Does this situation come up often?". If the answer is yes, then you shouldn't award the bonus. Common situations are covered by normal skill checks and rules. A 'cat burglar' shouldn't get a bonus to picking locks, that's just a thievery check. As a rule of thumb, a given non-adventuring skill shouldn't come up every adventure.

Looking forward
Feel free to post questions and criticisms. I moved this from the fan-creations forum to get more traffic. If feedback is good I will post more.

 

[Locien]

Does it necessarily follow that leaving the rules undefined for extra-combat skills make 4e better, or does it leaving them undefined make it possibly become more likely neglected as the characters are fundamentally built around combat. Just having a short job/background lifestyle description(ie. farmer, foraging woodsman, bookseller, fishmonger) without any explicit mechanical description be suggested for each character would be more useful.

 

[pemerton]

In 2e AD&D, characters had 'non-weapon proficiencies' for non-adventuring skills. Adventuring skills were handled by special rules, ability score checks, and class features.

This is not strictly true. Non-weapon proficiencies included skills like mountaineering (in 1st ed, at least, this gave a non-thief a climb chance), tracking (in 1st ed, at least, this gave a non-ranger a tracking chance) and blind-fighting. I think these would all fall under your definition of "adventuring skill".

Of course this doesn't undermine your overall point - it just indicates that AD&D was in some respects closer to 3E than you suggest.

In 3e D&D you spent skill points to learn either adventuring or non-adventuring skills. In 4e D&D we use skills to describe adventuring tasks only. Non-adventuring skills are simply not described in the rules.

<snip>

Players aren't forced to choose between the 'good' skills and the 'interesting' ones, as they were in 3e. Players aren't limited in the number of non-adventuring skills they know by the rules like in 2e.

I'm not sure I like the notion of "non-adventuring" skills. It's more about the sorts of PC activity that the game is intended to support, and also the way that the character-building rules relate to exploration of character and to the action resolution mechanic.

In Rolemaster, for example, played in full RMC2 or RMSS mode, there are dozens if not hundreds of skills. The character sheet is, in effect, a total picture of the PC's capabilities (and hence a very good hint at the PC's personality). This contributes very much to the characterisation of PCs.

It also means that the action in the game has a tendency to veer, at least on occasion, into activities for which the PCs have relevant skills, even if that action would not be part of a typical D&D adventure. This is facilitated by an experience system that doesn't reward only combat, meaning that diverting the action onto these other activities doesn't slow down the pace of PC advancement.

There are other features of RM that make this feasible. There is a complex system of siloing built around (i) variable costs from class to class for the various skills, and (ii) limits on how many skill ranks can be bought per level in a given skill. There is also a sytem of diminishing returns on bonus per skill rank, which means that DCs don't escalate as they do in D&D - and the low-open-eneded fumble system also means that part of the benefit of high bonuses is the ability to cope with open-ended low rolls, rather than the ability to hit DCs that other PCs can't.

I've got nothing against 4e's skill system, including it's (non-)treatment of crafting etc. But the system has to be analysed not only in relation to other character-building options, but in relation to the way that XP are awarded (and hence PC advancement paced), the way action resolution works, and so on. And it also has to be clearly understood by all at the table that the character sheet, for a 4e PC, is nothing like a total picture of that PC's capabilities and personality. (The retraining rules also make sense only under this assumption, I think.)

 

[eriktheguy]

Does it necessarily follow that leaving the rules undefined for extra-combat skills make 4e better, or does it leaving them undefined make it possibly become more likely neglected as the characters are fundamentally built around combat. Just having a short job/background lifestyle description(ie. farmer, foraging woodsman, bookseller, fishmonger) without any explicit mechanical description be suggested for each character would be more useful.

Most of my characters do have a 1 or 2 page background, and this describes their areas of expertise for the most part. Elements on character sheets get used very often. Most skill checks get used every session or two, most defenses get used, etc. These non-adventuring skills might get used two or three times one session, and then never again in the next four adventures. My characters are in hell right now, so weaving isn't likely to come up.

This is not strictly true. Non-weapon proficiencies included skills like mountaineering (in 1st ed, at least, this gave a non-thief a climb chance), tracking (in 1st ed, at least, this gave a non-ranger a tracking chance) and blind-fighting. I think these would all fall under your definition of "adventuring skill".

Of course this doesn't undermine your overall point - it just indicates that AD&D was in some respects closer to 3E than you suggest.

I'm not sure I like the notion of "non-adventuring" skills. It's more about the sorts of PC activity that the game is intended to support, and also the way that the character-building rules relate to exploration of character and to the action resolution mechanic.

In Rolemaster, for example, played in full RMC2 or RMSS mode, there are dozens if not hundreds of skills. The character sheet is, in effect, a total picture of the PC's capabilities (and hence a very good hint at the PC's personality). This contributes very much to the characterisation of PCs.

It also means that the action in the game has a tendency to veer, at least on occasion, into activities for which the PCs have relevant skills, even if that action would not be part of a typical D&D adventure. This is facilitated by an experience system that doesn't reward only combat, meaning that diverting the action onto these other activities doesn't slow down the pace of PC advancement.

There are other features of RM that make this feasible. There is a complex system of siloing built around (i) variable costs from class to class for the various skills, and (ii) limits on how many skill ranks can be bought per level in a given skill. There is also a sytem of diminishing returns on bonus per skill rank, which means that DCs don't escalate as they do in D&D - and the low-open-eneded fumble system also means that part of the benefit of high bonuses is the ability to cope with open-ended low rolls, rather than the ability to hit DCs that other PCs can't.

I've got nothing against 4e's skill system, including it's (non-)treatment of crafting etc. But the system has to be analysed not only in relation to other character-building options, but in relation to the way that XP are awarded (and hence PC advancement paced), the way action resolution works, and so on. And it also has to be clearly understood by all at the table that the character sheet, for a 4e PC, is nothing like a total picture of that PC's capabilities and personality. (The retraining rules also make sense only under this assumption, I think.)

I overlooked a few of those skills. I recall blind fighting actually, I think I remember it taking up most of the non-weapon proficiency 'slots'. That was a long time ago though .

Your pointers on Role-master are interesting. It seems like the difference is that Role-master uses a detailed character sheet to better define characters. I'm suggesting a character background to help define characters in more detail than the character sheet does. They're definitely similar concepts.

I'm assuming that RoleMaster gives you a relevant way to improve a large range of skills at character creation to make up for the large selection available, so that increasing two or three doesn't leave you inept at the rest (I found this to be a problem in 3e). This is one of the main reasons I wouldn't introduce new skills to 4e. In my view the main difference is scaling. In 4e you can encounter 'epic level challenges', but you have the +1/2 level to skill checks as you advance. Characters aren't just heroic, they're fantastical. Without the +1/2 level bonus the characters would still have some advancement from magic items, ability score increases, feats and skill powers. They could probably handle a more realistic skill challenge, say one up to level 6. This would probably be more similar to RM.

You do make some good points about letting player non-adventuring skills affect the direction of your adventures, and granting exp. This rules system is designed to encourage that. Within a few sessions of offering bonuses to players, they will probably realize they can use their backgrounds to their advantage and try to do it more often. In my current campaign a few choices on where to adventure next have been based on character backgrounds. I personally haven't used exp is about a year.

 

[Locien]

Most of my characters do have a 1 or 2 page background, and this describes their areas of expertise for the most part. Elements on character sheets get used very often. Most skill checks get used every session or two, most defenses get used, etc. These non-adventuring skills might get used two or three times one session, and then never again in the next four adventures. My characters are in hell right now, so weaving isn't likely to come up.

That's a bit more like what I'm talking about, but I was thinking about a paragraph describing the character's productive work skills. Think like a resume or a CV, but for a character, what they could do as a day job.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 2e AD&D, characters had 'non-weapon proficiencies' for non-adventuring skills. Adventuring skills were handled by special rules, ability score checks, and class features.

Well, non-weapon proficiences covered some adventuring skills, too. IN 1e AD&D, there was a random 'secondary skill,' table that you could roll on to get a pre-adventuring 'carreer' skill, like 'boyer/fletcher' or whatever...

 

[pemerton]

I'm assuming that RoleMaster gives you a relevant way to improve a large range of skills at character creation to make up for the large selection available, so that increasing two or three doesn't leave you inept at the rest (I found this to be a problem in 3e).

Yes.

It's hard to talk in general terms, because (i) there are multiple versions of Rolemaster out there, and (ii) it's a game that, as much if not more than 1st ed AD&D, virtually no one plays without houseruling in some fashion.

Roughly speaking, though, a PC might have something like 60 development points per level, and skill will have costs between about 1/3 and 3/7 (where the number before the slash is the cost for the first rank, and the number after the slash for the second rank, developed in a given level). Skill costs can in fact go up to 20/-, but it is very rare for a player to develop skills that are so expensive. Most skills that are developed tend to have a 1 or 2 cost, and it is rare though not unheard of to double-develop a skill with a cost greater than 1/5.

Starting PCs get two levels worth of development, plus other bonus ranks from here and there.

Skills give a bonus of +5 per rank for the first ten ranks, +2 or 3 (depending on rules variant) per rank for the next ten ranks, +1 per rank for the next ten ranks, and +.5 per rank for ranks over 30. There are also stat bonuses to skills that typically range between +5 and +25, and miscellaneous bonuses from class, items, spells etc that can range from +5 to +30 or more.

Starting skill bonuses in skills that a player takes seriously can be anywhere between +20 and +50. At high level (10+), skill bonuses for good skills will reach or pass +100. A warrior or wizard will tend to spend more than half their DPs on developing fighting or magical skills as appropriate, but the available DPs and the "siloing" (in virtue of double-development costs and diminishing returns) mean that there is always going to be some diversification in skill development, generally increasing as levels are gained.

This is one of the main reasons I wouldn't introduce new skills to 4e.

Absolutely agreed. (And in RM, as various rulesets have grown the number of skills, they have also grown the DPs available to PCs.)

In 4e you can encounter 'epic level challenges', but you have the +1/2 level to skill checks as you advance. Characters aren't just heroic, they're fantastical. Without the +1/2 level bonus the characters would still have some advancement from magic items, ability score increases, feats and skill powers. They could probably handle a more realistic skill challenge, say one up to level 6. This would probably be more similar to RM.

Well, RM doesn't have the linear increase in bonuses that D&D does, because of the diminishing returns per rank. But as a general rule, the difference between a 1st and 5th level RM PC, or a 10th and 20th level one, is not so much the difficulty of a given challenge that can be overcome, but rather their resilience over multiple challenges, and in dealing with failure/injury.

As to the +1/2 level bonus in 4e - in my view this is best seen as a technique to drive the story of the game forward. That is, assuming that a GM uses at least a good chunk of monsters more or less as published, then at the start of the game the PCs will be facing challenges involving kobolds, goblins and 10' pits on the mortal world, in the middle they will be facing drow, mindflayers and underdark chasms 20' wide and 100' deep, and at high levels they will be facing demons and efreet in the infinite vortex of the elemental chaos.

There is no need, in my view, to also read the +1/2 per level in some literal sense as representing proportionate improvement in skill or difficulty of task.

This rules system is designed to encourage that. Within a few sessions of offering bonuses to players, they will probably realize they can use their backgrounds to their advantage and try to do it more often. In my current campaign a few choices on where to adventure next have been based on character backgrounds.

PC backgrounds, and also PC goals as revealed in actual play, also play a very big role in my game. And I agree that they provide a good way of driving skill challenges forward - I don't tend to use a lot of +2 bonuses, but narrate the situation and the result of any given check in light of the particular PC whose player is making the check.

 

[eriktheguy]

PC backgrounds, and also PC goals as revealed in actual play, also play a very big role in my game. And I agree that they provide a good way of driving skill challenges forward - I don't tend to use a lot of +2 bonuses, but narrate the situation and the result of any given check in light of the particular PC whose player is making the check.

I think this is the best way to do it. The +2 bonus comes up rarely actually. I listed it first because it is the easiest for any DM to apply.

More often an appropriate background will allow a character to make a skill check that was never planned to exist, or to begin a skill challenge that was never written. Sometimes this helps them achieve the objectives of the adventure, and sometimes it helps them achieve something completely unrelated to the adventure or my plans. Thinking back, the sessions where the PCs ruined my plans have been the best.

 

[pemerton]

More often an appropriate background will allow a character to make a skill check that was never planned to exist, or to begin a skill challenge that was never written.

One of the aspects of the 4e DMGs that irritates me is the absence of support on how to run the game in this sort of way - especially as the rules see to contemplate it, given their strong encouragement for player-nominated quests.

 

[Riastlin]

While I wouldn't do this for 4ed. simply because of the "messyness" of making such a change mid-edition, I think a good way to go about these "non-adventuring" skills such as professions and perform would be to treat it similar to how 3.x did, but separate from the "adventuring" skills.

In other words, players would get X points (or trainings) in adventuring skills (stealth, acrobatics, etc.), and then get a separate pool of points to spend in non-adventuring skills (craft, profession, perform, etc.). The problem that these skills had in 3.x is that while they did occasionally come into play, they did not come into play often enough in most cases to really warrant much investment in them at the cost of improving "adventuring skills". Giving them a separate pool though removes the "penalty" associated with choosing a non-optimal skill while encouraging the development of a character's background. As a DM, I am often somewhat frustrated by the lack of backgrounds from my players. A number of my players just are not into creating back stories for their characters and instead are just concerned with killing and collecting loot, etc. These non-adventuring skills though would essentially create a background for them without them even really thinking about it.

Of course, not every DM has these problems and I may well be in the minority. ;P