I want my actions to matter

[Manbearcat]

how would anyone even go about this? There is a poll, people vote and that is it. On top of that WotC even admits to not always listening to the poll results.

So if what you want is not what D&D is, then what you want is simply not all that popular (or you need to communicate it better, I have no idea what changes you actually are advocating for)

"Go about this?"

Is "this" here safeguarding the brand? Meaning, you're either disputing or unclear about whether this is possible in culture generally or the D&D zeitgeist/culture specifically?

I don't know how old you are. I have no idea how much exposure you have to all of this? If you're relatively new to the hobby then maybe you're just seeing the finished cultural product and thinking this is a genesis rather than the (current) endpoint of a very long journey to get here? I'm 46. I started playing running games when I was 7 in 1984. The TTRPG cultural fabric was extremely alive even back then even without the pervasiveness of the internet. I'm not going to write an essay on the entirety of this but an abridged version of influence would probably look like:

* Dragonlance + VtM + Larping and the "Roleplaying NOT ROLLPLAYING" wars in the late 80s and early 90s. Either its just an extraordinary coincidence or 2e design and products (setting and adventures) were absolutely, deeply influenced by this and the complaints about AD&D being a sprawl of rules. B/X, BECMI, and RC were basically a separate line that were comparatively still interested in D&D being a "game as game."

* 3e was a design reaction to Simulationist interests of the 90s.

* 4e was a design reaction to the issues that various aspects of the culture and various designers 3.x and the various trends of the time including all of the scene resolution/indie games that came out of The Forge/Fate/BW family of games, and the themes and some of the design inherent to MtG, Diablo, and WoW.

* 5e was absolutely the biggest "reaction edition" as the scorched earth of the edition war laid waste the cultural fabric of D&D both online, in stores, and in meatspace generally (for eff sakes, you couldn't gather in nerd movie lines or in comic stores, or game stores or any nerd spaces without a "spillover event"). The designers told us so as plainly as possible in their own words and in their curated playtest and surveys that 5e was the nostalgia, Rulings Not Rules edition that wanted to catered to lapsed AD&D players, the OSR, and 3.x/PF players. I said during the playtests that this has all the earmarks of "AD&D 3e." It obvsiouly did. I also said that the design would regret its approach to the work day and complete abandonment of balance at the scene/encounter level. Those remarks were as booed as could possibly be.

Fast forward 4-5 years and folks were routinely calling 5e AD&D 3e and folks were lamenting the Adventuring Day dynamics left and right, trying to develop community hacks/workarounds for encounter/scenario design, difficulty curve predictability, and workday models that didn't rely upon awkward 6-8 combats for desired attrition.

---

D&D has been a culture war since the late 80s at least (possibly before that, but I wasn't about for that). I can't even see how this could be disputed. So many D&D players are deeply, deeply tethered to brand identity and the cultural engagement and cultural reaction and cultural networking is deep and wide and prolific. "D&D is a way of life" is basically a battle cry.

What changes do I personally want? What am I advocating for?

Personally, I would like to see people stop trying to own the culture and trying to act like D&D is this one thing and stop trying to protect it from influences that they're afraid would capture the zeitgeist (and therefore find their way into design bogeymen into the next edition). I'd like for 12-15 year olds not to be chastised for being shallow ROLLPLAYERs (not the esteemed "roleplayers" of the 2e, Dragonlance, beginning Adventure Path, and VtM era of D&D). I'd like for the 4e edition war not to have happened in internet-space with its spillover into nerd meatspace.

That would be pretty great.

As far as design things I'm advocating for? I don't care. I run tons and tons of games. I've got lots of variations of D&D (TSR and WotC and indie). I don't need nor do I really want more. I doubt I would be playing a 6e and I certainly won't engage in any playtest after the last playtest.

A community that isn't perpetually captured by MINE, perpetually splintered in the most hostile ways possible (as it was since the late 80s and little kids who just wanted to play a game of Pawn Stance dungeon/hexcrawl D&D were nearly pushed out of the hobby by TRUE ROLEPLAYERS TM and GMs with vast storytelling imperatives for their play) and fighting over influencing and safeguarding D&D would be awesome. Not holding my breath though!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

So the question isn't necessarily how many skills(though you can have too few or too many), but rather how do we make it so that a reasonable number of the skills we are using can be chosen. "Optimal" becomes a combination of number of skills and the points/proficiencies you can choose out that number, which means that there won't be a single optimal number of skills.

These in game skills... there are so many variations and specialisations. Attempts to quantify each and every one, though admirable, I think are doomed to fail. There is just too much going on... too many holes in the dyke. I mean, you could create an elaborate system that covers, for example, physics vs. astrophysics vs. space-faring engineering vs. etc. etc.

You could even back this up a bit. What is the base system that works best for this? Bearing in mind this has to work in a real life human game, not just some hyper-verisimilitude mind palace simulation. Skills are things people learn. As opposed to innate talents, like natural athleticism. How do you best mimic that in a game system?

 

[tetrasodium]

That was interesting. So which of these systems do you think works best? You listed GURPS, 4E and 3.x.

All of them were designed for the system they were built for they paired with. Gurps is so different in design goals and mechanics that it's almost pointless for anything other than an example of how an extreme outlier self prunes the list. Where 5e most differ from 4e is in the splitting of skill selection options between class and almost meaningless opportunity cost background with a trivialized hurdle for swapping those two pools for any other skills not that oneish skill count difference. 3.x had by far the better system by allowing skill growth to fit shifting campaign needs and choices between specialization/dabbling/untrained with thematically limited choice options that made creating the chorus itself into a painful option unless the group probably had big gaps elsewhere due to things like many of a particular niche. I didn't see cross class skills as the problem @Maxperson seems to describe them as since IME they were generally avoided beyond prereqs & minimally basic competence*, having class skills and "no it's not a class or feat granted skill for you" wouldn't have made much difference IMO.

* Ie a point or two in a skill that lets a 5 strength wizard know which end of the boat is which in a nautical campaign but not much else

 

[Maxperson]

These in game skills... there are so many variations and specialisations. Attempts to quantify each and every one, though admirable, I think are doomed to fail. There is just too much going on... too many holes in the dyke. I mean, you could create an elaborate system that covers, for example, physics vs. astrophysics vs. space-faring engineering vs. etc. etc.

You could even back this up a bit. What is the base system that works best for this? Bearing in mind this has to work in a real life human game, not just some hyper-verisimilitude mind palace simulation. Skills are things people learn. As opposed to innate talents, like natural athleticism. How do you best mimic that in a game system?

I get it. That's why I liked the 3e system so much. It didn't have too many skills once you upped the low skill point classes and got rid of cross class skills. At the same time, though, it had enough granularity that it wasn't mixing up climbing with swimming with jumping.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

3.x had by far the better system by allowing skill growth to fit shifting campaign needs and choices between specialization/dabbling/untrained with thematically limited choice options that made creating the chorus itself into a painful option unless the group probably had big gaps elsewhere due to things like many of a particular niche. I didn't see cross class skills as the problem @Maxperson seems to describe them as since IME they were generally avoided beyond prereqs & minimally basic competence*, having class skills and "no it's not a class or feat granted skill for you" wouldn't have made much difference IMO.

I get it. That's why I liked the 3e system so much. It didn't have too many skills once you upped the low skill point classes and got rid of cross class skills. At the same time, though, it had enough granularity that it wasn't mixing up climbing with swimming with jumping.

Okay, cool. So you both like 3E as a baseline it seems. That system has a problem IMO that you guys are okay to overlook: the investment in cross-class skills. Simplicity is elegance. Or maybe it's the other way around.

How do you take your 3E skill system and divest it of this trap/mini-game of cross-class skills? Or the concept of the partially trained individual important enough that you want it hanging around in your new magical skill system?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, cool. So you both like 3E as a baseline it seems. That system has a problem IMO that you guys are okay to overlook: the investment in cross-class skills. Simplicity is elegance. Or maybe it's the other way around.

How do you take your 3E skill system and divest it of this trap/mini-game of cross-class skills? Or the concept of the partially trained individual important enough that you want it hanging around in your new magical skill system?

Didn't they both say they would get rid of the concept of cross class skills? I assume that means no penalty in buying up any skill.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Didn't they both say they would get rid of the concept of cross class skills? I assume that means no penalty in buying up any skill.

Well, @Maxperson did... but didn't explain how. @tetrasodium just said they were ignored. I was asking how a system that didn't include them at all would look like.

So to answer your question: it might. I was looking for insight from those two.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In addition of excessively narrow skills, another thing I didn't like about 3e skill system is how you bought skills with points, but your attack bonus was fixed by the class. That seems system aesthetically jarring. In 5e whilst weapon and spell attacks are not technically skills, they follow the same logic of proficiency + ability.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, cool. So you both like 3E as a baseline it seems. That system has a problem IMO that you guys are okay to overlook: the investment in cross-class skills. Simplicity is elegance. Or maybe it's the other way around.

How do you take your 3E skill system and divest it of this trap/mini-game of cross-class skills? Or the concept of the partially trained individual important enough that you want it hanging around in your new magical skill system?

I'm going to quote me in the post you just quoted.

"I get it. That's why I liked the 3e system so much. It didn't have too many skills once you upped the low skill point classes and got rid of cross class skills. At the same time, though, it had enough granularity that it wasn't mixing up climbing with swimming with jumping."

 

[Maxperson]

Well, @Maxperson did... but didn't explain how. @tetrasodium just said they were ignored. I was asking how a system that didn't include them at all would look like.

So to answer your question: it might. I was looking for insight from those two.

I don't understand what you mean. There is no "how." You just announce it to be gone and POOF, no more cross class skills. That's what I did for my 3.5 games and it worked out great. Every class had a base 4 skill points, not 2 and cross class skills didn't exist. You could pick any skill 1 for 1. It worked out great.

Fighters could pick up spot or move silent and actually be decent/good at those skills. Wizards could pick up persuasion and be good. It allowed players to achieve more character concepts and much more easily.