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

Would you play D&D [i]without[/i] a Skill System?

  • No, I couldn't play without one in place.

    Votes: 105 39.5%
  • Yes, I could play it, but I would miss it.

    Votes: 68 25.6%
  • Yes, I could play it, but I would improvise my own.

    Votes: 42 15.8%
  • Yes, and Good Riddance to it. Good Day, Sir.

    Votes: 38 14.3%
  • I don't care, either way.

    Votes: 13 4.9%

WizarDru

Adventurer
As part of another discussion, the idea was tossed out that D&D might not have evolved toward the desire of the players on a number of fronts.

I'm curious how people feel about the Skill System as it has evolved in D&D. In OD&D*, there weren't really skills, but DM-adjudications. If your character was a Fighting Man and your back-story said you had been the son of a blacksmith, then your DM might allow you to do something as a blacksmith, with or without a roll. With 1e, we saw non-weapon proficiencies appear, mostly intended as back-filler to quantify that same idea. Now you KNEW you'd been a cooper before adventure called. With 2e*, we saw Skills and Powers introduce more complexity to the idea and give substats for specific tasks. With 3e, we saw skills come into their own, more approximating what GURPS and HERO had been doing for a long time. With 3.5e, we saw skills pared down and clarified. With 4e, we know that the designers are looking at re-jiggering the system again.

(* - Clarification: I never played OD&D OR 2e, so this information is second-hand based on discussions had here on the boards. Feel free to point out if I've misrepresented these details.)


My question then is this: would you play D&D without a Skill System? Has your expectation become such that you would expect D&D (and most RPGs) to possess one?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Clarification: 2e had full-on skills in the core rules ("non-weapon proficiencies"). You gained a number of these every few levels.


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.
 

After two weeks of playing Moldvay Basic, I am *emphatically* in the "Good Riddance" camp.

I had no idea how much the d20 skill system was clogging up my D&D games until it was gone.
 

Wormwood said:
After two weeks of playing Moldvay Basic, I am *emphatically* in the "Good Riddance" camp.

I had no idea how much the d20 skill system was clogging up my D&D games until it was gone.

you should give OD&D(1974) a go then.

you will be surprised at just how much the later stuff has been clogging up your noggin.
 



I want my Gnome Wizard to be a reknown gemcutter.
I want my Dwarf Cleric to be a master Architect.
I want my Necromancer to be able to perform autopsys and document the results in his sketchbook.

I want my game to provide mechanics so that the character's ability to do any of those things is precise and discrete.

Any system that makes those things possible will make me happy; I adore the 3.5 system for its flexibility and thoroughness.
 

Unequivocally not. This is not even a negotiating point. You don't give me a reasonable skill system, that's an edition or variant of D&D I will not be playing.

I want my Gnome Wizard to be a reknown gemcutter.
I want my Dwarf Cleric to be a master Architect.
I want my Necromancer to be able to perform autopsys and document the results in his sketchbook.

I want my game to provide mechanics so that the character's ability to do any of those things is precise and discrete.

Any system that makes those things possible will make me happy; I adore the 3.5 system for its flexibility and thoroughness.

Well put.
 

Absolutely.

I want combat mechanics, not jumping and basket weaving mechanics. Ad hoc quick judgments are fine by me for most skill actions.
 


Remove ads

Top