Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the_redbeard" data-source="post: 6905785" data-attributes="member: 22644">I'm actually considering getting rid of the skill system altogether.&nbsp; Perhaps I'd keep tool/kit proficiencies, but maybe not.Why?As a DM, the skill system encourages me to ask the players for a roll instead of asking them to describe their action, or just saying Yes/Yes, But/No. Unless failure is really interesting and costly probably most things should succeed.For knowledge skills, I'd rather ask them how they imagine their character would have come by the information, what book they read and where they found it, who taught them or where they might have seen the situation before.For social skills, I'd rather they talk it out.Many maneuvers are probably things that characters should succeed at if they're reasonable.&nbsp; I'd still have ability checks to fall back on and if they player could justify it, their proficiency bonus.&nbsp; We've race, class and backgrounds and the character's ideals, bonds and flaws to go on.This actually has been in my mind because I've been thinking about using B/X or Labyrinth Lord as a base system, though perhaps with redesigned, more 5e style, races and classes.&nbsp; But maybe just simplifying 5e would be better.&nbsp;&nbsp; But the skill system in 5e is so simple that I wonder if I'd be making more work in adjudication/negotiation by removing it.&nbsp; I just don't like the temptation to use it when I shouldn't.My DMing philosophy is that the rules are only there to aid the DM in adjudicating a PC's actions in response to the environment the DM has described.&nbsp; That's a very old school style, derived from when players often didn't even own the rule books, only the DM did.&nbsp; Even by 1e, there are NO RULES for combat in the Players Handbook.&nbsp; Of course by 3.x, rules have become player empowerment.&nbsp; There's some use to that:&nbsp; players understand how their actions impact the world and that helps them choose their actions.&nbsp; /end digression.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the_redbeard, post: 6905785, member: 22644"] I'm actually considering getting rid of the skill system altogether. Perhaps I'd keep tool/kit proficiencies, but maybe not. Why? As a DM, the skill system encourages me to ask the players for a roll instead of asking them to describe their action, or just saying Yes/Yes, But/No. Unless failure is really interesting and costly probably most things should succeed. For knowledge skills, I'd rather ask them how they imagine their character would have come by the information, what book they read and where they found it, who taught them or where they might have seen the situation before. For social skills, I'd rather they talk it out. Many maneuvers are probably things that characters should succeed at if they're reasonable. I'd still have ability checks to fall back on and if they player could justify it, their proficiency bonus. We've race, class and backgrounds and the character's ideals, bonds and flaws to go on. This actually has been in my mind because I've been thinking about using B/X or Labyrinth Lord as a base system, though perhaps with redesigned, more 5e style, races and classes. But maybe just simplifying 5e would be better. But the skill system in 5e is so simple that I wonder if I'd be making more work in adjudication/negotiation by removing it. I just don't like the temptation to use it when I shouldn't. My DMing philosophy is that the rules are only there to aid the DM in adjudicating a PC's actions in response to the environment the DM has described. That's a very old school style, derived from when players often didn't even own the rule books, only the DM did. Even by 1e, there are NO RULES for combat in the Players Handbook. Of course by 3.x, rules have become player empowerment. There's some use to that: players understand how their actions impact the world and that helps them choose their actions. /end digression. [/QUOTE]

Verification