POLL: Would you play D&D without a Skill System?

[Lackhand]

In the absence of a Real Skill System (tm!) I'd implement my own.

I'm okay with using a different system for Spot or Balance than for Craft(Gemcutting), as that's what we have with Balance versus Reflex save, or Spot versus Will Save.

I'd probably use some sort of Backstory-type role: Pick a race, pick a few classes, and pick a backstory. Some backstories give you real in-play bennies: Sailors who can climb and tie knots, mountaineers who know how to rock-climb; some would have sort of hacked-together bennies, with gemcutting granting easier access to wealth or crafting items, and maybe a few bonus languages.

They'd just give you a general +4 to any task involving your backstory.

Oh god, I guess I sort of like NWP when appropriate. I'm sorry! I'm sorry!

I don't demand granularity from my skill system, quite the opposite, really.

 

[BryonD]

Player: "Even though it is windy, I try to start a fire for our camp."
DM: "OK, you start it."
Player: "Really? I don't have to roll?"
DM: "If your pre-modern adventurer is so anemic that he can't even start a fire, climb up a tree or hunt down a bunny rabbit for dinner, he might as well just jump down the throat of the next owlbear he meets. So no, you don't have to roll, mighty warrior."

Straw man anyone?

Seriously, I know you have not remotely described the way skill use happens in my games and I'd be willing to bet that the roughly 80% support for skills reflects experiences closer to mine than what you have described.
If anyone is dealing with the issues you described, then you are going to ave problems well beyond skills.

 

[Desdichado]

Simply put: I would never play a game without a reasonably detailed skill system. This is one of my minimum requirements for any game I'd bother to play.

What he said. A reasonably robust skill system is what allows D&D to be something other than tactical miniatures game or a dungeoncrawl without ad hoc DM adjudication everywhere.

And I don't strictly follow the rules on setting DC's and whatnot, but I love having the ability to adjudicate something a player tells me he wants to do by just saying, "make a Tumble check" or whatever skill most nearly applies.

 

[WizarDru]

I guess it raises the question: what is a skill system, and what is not having a skill system.

For the purposes of this poll, I'm classifying a skill system as a discrete system of talents and knowledge sets selectable by the player not directly tied to level, class, race or the like and the player has some degree of control over. It must also be advance-able in some form under the player's control.

For purposes of our discussion "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" or "% chance to detect secret door" is not a skill system. Nor, for that matter is "number of spells known" or "+2d6 damage Sneak Attack". The player must be able to make a conscious choice to select a skill and increase it, with the number not directly tied to their level.

 

[TerraDave]

The player must be able to make a conscious choice to select a skill and increase it, with the number not directly tied to their level.

In this case, 2nd ed D&D (or even 1e towards its end) does have a skill system.

But does SAGA?

 

[Nifft]

For the purposes of this poll, I'm classifying a skill system as a discrete system of talents and knowledge sets selectable by the player not directly tied to level, class, race or the like and the player has some degree of control over. It must also be advance-able in some form under the player's control.

For purposes of our discussion "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" or "% chance to detect secret door" is not a skill system. Nor, for that matter is "number of spells known" or "+2d6 damage Sneak Attack". The player must be able to make a conscious choice to select a skill and increase it, with the number not directly tied to their level.

Does SW Saga have a skill system?

IMHO it does, but I think your definition precludes it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[BryonD]

Does SW Saga have a skill system?

IMHO it does, but I think your definition precludes it.

Cheers, -- N

I'd guess that SAGA would slip just under the bar due to the ability to choose focuses and trained. But just barely.

It is still way too far into cookie cutter land for my personal taste.

 

[Psion]

In this case, 2nd ed D&D (or even 1e towards its end) does have a skill system.

Yeah it does. You could plow more NWP slots into a NWP to get a bonus.

Of course, the rate of progression was so slow compared to the initial investment that nobody actually did that.

 

[TerraDave]

Yeah it does. You could plow more NWP slots into a NWP to get a bonus.

Of course, the rate of progression was so slow compared to the initial investment that nobody actually did that.

Going back to SAGA: is that that different then just one or two discrete choices on how well a skill can be used?

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Actually, I'll offer a somewhat counter-opinion to the prior post. There's some stuff -- like gemcutting or architecture -- which is just so time-consuming I can't realistically see how someone could be really skilled in it at the same time that they're also a front-line soldier/mercenary/adventurer.

That one's actually bugged me ever since 1E's secondary skills. I'm thinking, aren't knights trained from pre-pubescence in nothing but riding and swordplay? Aren't clerics forced into a priesthood training from an early age to the exclusion of all else? Minor side-skills like climbing, firestarting, weapon maintenence, etc., I have no problem with. But having the time to be professionally skilled at a whole separate profession has always seemed too unrealistic to me. Seems too much like a gimme-everything-I-want-it-all pipe dream, personally.

I voted would play, but make my own. (Which I have done. Most of my GMing has been RQ or homebrew.)

However, I must disagree with part of the above. No, knights were not trained to just fight. They also had to learn artistic/musical skills, and how to serve. ('Everyone knows' that Samurai did, but few seem to realise that European knights did too.)