Has the skill list gone in the wrong direction?

[Ratskinner]

I must say I generally agree with the OP's concerns when it comes to checks in the "roleplaying" pillar. The Bounty Hunter may be intimidating to some thug on the docks, but the King in his court will be singularly unimpressed.

So, for that pillar, and perhaps to modify checks in the Exploration and Combat pillars. I think the Background should give you its Title, description, Benefit, and then you choose some secondary traits. So maybe a Bounty Hunter would be "Worldly", "Rustic", "Determined", "Cautious", or "Brutal" pick 2.

My only real qualm with this is the area of Thieving and other Exploration checks. However, I suspect that could by handled by wrapping that mechanic wholly within the class and its "scheme" structure.

 

[pemerton]

The trouble with leaving the background open ended is that, for instance, the Artisan doesn't really get very many bonuses at all, compared with, say, the Bounty Hunter.

I think that if the game is going to include Backgrounds, then this has to be regarded as a feature, not a bug. A player how chooses to play an Artisan knows what s/he is getting into, and the burden now falls on him/her to find ways to make the PC's Artisanship matter in play.

The problem with undefined skills is, that you can make up pretty much everything.

<snip>

You need to have a clear list of what skills you can take and what these skills cover.

I don't agree, as I'll try to explain: there can be another way of establishing scope and limits of backgrounds.

I know there are gonna be all kinds of problems with your way of doing things, especially problems related to (a) putting too much weight on the DM's shoulders and (b) the DM vs. player empowerment debate. I'll speak to each one in turn.

(a) We're basically talking about giving backgrounds granular, inconsistent skills rather than standardized, unified, generic skills.

<snip>

I think the solution to this problem is just to provide as much guidance as possible, but make sure you don't suggest a unified "skill system." So have a section somewhere with suggested climb DCs, suggested social interaction/persuasion DCs, suggested spot DCs, but don't suggest that Spot is a Skill.

Agreed.

Likewise, if they go this route, then the backrounds themselves need to have some pretty clear and specific guidelines to help players and DMs decide what does and does not get the bonus.

But not completely agreed. There is another technique that can be used here, I think. Which relates to the empowerment issue.

Sorry, but that's just a recipe for player vs. DM conflict.

I don't agree. I'll try to explain why. It relates both to the setting of scope and limits, and to the empowerment issue.

(b) The player vs. DM empowerment issue is a thorny one. I know the player empowerment advocates will not like a "skill system" which places so much emphasis on DM judgment calls.

<snip>

I don't have a solution to this issue, so eh.

I'm very much a "player empowerment" person, but I don't object to this sort of skill system at all. I think it has the potential to work well for D&D - I use a (much softer) version of it in my 4e game, only treating Paragon Paths as the relevant backgrounds - +2 circumstance bonuses to checks which are directly in the field of your paragon path (applied more sympathetically to those PCs with bad stats or untrained skills).

I think that one way to solve the scope/limit issue is to give the player an interest in both broad and narrow scope. The interest in broad scope obviously comes from increased PC efffectiveness. The way to introduce an interest in narrow scope is to give the GM permisssion to introduce complications into a situation based on the player's narration of their background.

I will elaborate this by reference to these posts by the OPer:

Then I would suggest that the DM needs to grow a pair.

<snip>

speaking personally as a DM... I would have worked with the player to actually have him create who exactly he spied for, why he was a spy, who were generally his targets etc. etc. You know... the PC's background.

I also wouldn't mind something like this if two things happened...

1) The player made a very good explanation as to how his time and background as a pirate would apply to this specific situation

Long justifications from a player, in the course of play, can bog down and (as was noted upthread) cause player-GM conflict. And working out backgrounds in advance can also be boring and a bit academic.

The alternative is that, when a player wants to call on his/her PC's background and the GM thinks it's not clearly a "yes" nor clearly a "no", the player goes on to explain how, in his/her PC's background, s/he learned to do this thing/recognise this thing/once courted a duchess/whatever it might be. And this extra PC background then both underpins the +3, but also provides the basis on which the GM can introduce complications for the player's PC. So the player has an incentive to be measured rather than profligate in spinning tall tales about his/her PC's background.

This approach also reconciles a high degree of GM arbitration with a high degree of player empowerment: the player gets to frame his/her conception of his/her PC, but the GM gets to frame the complications the gameworld throws at that PC. And the more flamboyant the background, the greater the opportunity to introduce complications.

This also helps balance the Artisan and the Bounty Hunter. The Artisan background suits a player who is happy making a modest range of skill or ability checks, and who doesn't want to be the main focus of the action. The Bounty Hunter (or Pirate, or Knight, or Noble) suits a player who wants to have his PC get more limelight, both as a protagonist and a victim of circumstance.

 

[Ferrous]

I agree with the original poster. At the very least we need to foldback the skill list for lores as 13 of 25 skills are lores that seem to overlap both with each other and other more general skills.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Someone had an idea upthread that I mulled over, so I have a proposal. I don't agree that skill usage is as narrow as some have described - I think that if you're a pirate and climbed rigging a lot, you're also going to be quite capable of climbing fences and walls. I think if you've haggled with merchants before, you've learnt something you can apply to negotiating with orcs to release prisoners, though you're probably not capable of inspiring a warband before battle.

Your background consists of 4 elements as follows:

WHO you regularly interacted with before you became an adventurer, the people you are used to dealing with, whose customs and practices you understand.

WHAT you did in your background, the typical tasks and challenges you encountered everyday and learnt how to deal with.

WHERE you were during your background, which might include being itinerant, not just where you lived but where you felt comfortable and at home.

BONUS trait, the cute little things we've seen so far in backgrounds like having a shop or retainers.

For any given skill check, you get a +1 if you are dealing with the right people (something overlaps with your WHO), a +1 if a task is something you've done or are familiar with (your WHAT) and a +1 if a task is in a location you a familiar with (your WHERE). Obviously if you were used to dealing with merchants, and your background regularly involved haggling, and you are at your local market, you'll get +3, but if you have to negotiate with orcs to release prisoners you'll likely only get a +1.

Example: Artisan

WHO - merchants, craftsmen and one of nobles (fancy goods), soldiers (weapons/armor), mages (books), commoners (food/drink)
WHAT - crafting, trading
WHERE - your home town, major cities nearby for trade fairs, markets
BONUS - you have a workshop etc.

Example: Bounty Hunter

WHO - law enforcement, criminals
WHAT - tracking, gathering information, alertness, athletics
WHERE - your home area and either the wilderness or the urban underworld
BONUS - bounty board

Thoughts?

 

[pemerton]

Thoughts?

Interesting, potentially fiddly in play but a lot of people don't mind fiddly! Some of it reminds me of the modifiers to a Circles check in Burning Wheel.

I still think some sort of technique for imposing limits without too much GM/player conflict would be helpful, and I still think my suggestion above - that this can be done by giving the player an interest in being cautious about pushing the limits - might be useful for this.

 

[S'mon]

I agree; for level-based games, IME Attribute Checks plus Backgrounds (aka 1e AD&D 'secondary skills') are a much better approach than narrow skill lists and the horrors of '2 skill ranks/level Fighters' etc. IMO the d20-roll-under-ability check is brilliantly simple and effective; it should never have gone away.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Interesting, potentially fiddly in play but a lot of people don't mind fiddly! Some of it reminds me of the modifiers to a Circles check in Burning Wheel.

I still think some sort of technique for imposing limits without too much GM/player conflict would be helpful, and I still think my suggestion above - that this can be done by giving the player an interest in being cautious about pushing the limits - might be useful for this.

I've tried to aim for a fairly open system, but with some boundaries that help the GM/Player make a decision about whether something is relevant. Reducing the bonuses also makes someone less likely to waste time arguing over their background.

I think my problem with your suggestion is that it puts a heavy onus on the GM to put those complications into the game. This is great for narrative games in which twists and turns in the story fit easily, but when you've planned a village, a dungeon, a bad guy and his minions, if you want to throw in a couple more NPCs to justify some dubious background stories players came up with, it takes time and effort to adjust your plans. Unless you throw in bad stuff with narrative disconnect, I suppose - that's ok. In some games I would happily have someone's sword break and adjust their background to account for this myself, in exchange for the player having adjusted their background to get something in game, but again, this sort of give and take doesn't work too well in D&D.

 

[Rune]

I have suggested a system in this thread that I believe would solve many of these problems.

The reasoning for this system can be found in the linked post. The nuts and bolts of the system follow:

The DM assigns a set number of floating bonuses to the PCs each adventuring day, session, encounter, or whatever unit of time is appropriate for the DM's taste. These are a finite number of unassigned circumstantial (or "skill") bonuses.

In order to use one of these bonuses, the player simply (and briefly) explains how the character has this edge. The players can then (temporarily) assign such bonuses to background elements--previously established or not--and the DM writes down any potential hooks stemming from newly established background elements for future use...especially for those background elements that seem to contradict the established character of the PC.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Your background consists of 4 elements as follows:

WHO you regularly interacted with before you became an adventurer, the people you are used to dealing with, whose customs and practices you understand.

WHAT you did in your background, the typical tasks and challenges you encountered everyday and learnt how to deal with.

WHERE you were during your background, which might include being itinerant, not just where you lived but where you felt comfortable and at home.

BONUS trait, the cute little things we've seen so far in backgrounds like having a shop or retainers.

This system is complementary to pemerton's alternative, not opposed to it. If the DM wants to lean pemerton's way, he can still use the above as a rough and ready guideline for when and how to assign bonuses. That is, the above system becomes a framework for thinking about how to handle bonuses, not something you consult each time.

OTOH, if the DM wants to lean Chris_Nightwing's way, then the sections supporting pemerton's method become useful advice on scene framing when more consequences seem warranted--especially based on past fiction--or the players start lobbying hard for something. "OK, you can talk your way out of streaking through the princess' ballroom because you knew her as a child. But this is going to bite you later!"

 

[Stalker0]

Say I have the skill "Bounty Hunter" and I demand from the DM that it provides me with a bonus to stealth, perception, tracking, intimidation, climbing, riding, geographical knowlege, legal knowledge, finding rumors, setting traps, and what else I can think of.
And another player has taken the Skills "baking" and "tracking wild animals".

And this is when your DM steps in and says no.

Your example sums up very nicely the "Rules Heavy" vs "Rules Lite" debate that has gone on for years. Its obviously a very good argument, because it has driven the increasingly rules heavy systems that we have seen over the years.

But...the designers have stated that 5e is intended to be a more rules lite system. The primary reason is that if I want a rules heavy game I can play a computer game. The DM is THE primary benefit of pen and paper games....so a modern system needs to do what it can to leverage that critical component.

If the designers are serious about this change, then skills are a great area to show it. If we are once again providing skill lists in order to protect against DM decisions....then the new edition will show an inevitable shift towards a rules heavy game once more.