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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Indeed. Your entire abilities were up to the DM. I hate that. If DM fiat isnt good enough for swinging a sword, its not good enough for tricking someone, jumping over a chasm, or knowing a bit of history.

 

[Mallus]

Definately.

I want to play in games where my characters can interact with the game world in cool, interesting, often ludricous and ludicrously-violent ways. So long as I get to do that, I don't care much about the resolution mechanics used.

The core of D&D is me stating my characters action and then reacting to the DM's repsonse. If that basic transaction results in me being entertained, I'm happy.

 

[Piratecat]

Last time I tried to play 2e, I wanted to grab non-weapon proficiencies by their pudgy little throats and throttle them until they stopped kicking. It's astonishing how much more limited they are than skills. I'm happy to play 1e, with no skills at all, or 3e, with a good skill system. The intermediate solution doesn't do it for me any more.

 

[Creamsteak]

I agree with Diaglo and Piratecat.

 

[drothgery]

Since I had a lot of fun in college playing D&D 2e, which effectively had no skill system (non weapon profs and thief skills don't really count), I'm sure I could play without one. And I think the hyper-fine-grained D&D/standard d20 skill system has some serious issues for a generally coarse-grained game like D&D. Right now, I'm thinking something like Star Wars Saga skills, True20 skills, or the UA 'Maximum ranks' option is about the right place for the D&D skill system to be.

 

[GreatLemur]

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 dunno. There are some "skills" that just seem inappropriate to actually spend points on. If a player wants his character to be a gemcutter, I don't think I'd ever tell him to buy ranks of Profession: gemcutter. It's probably never gonna come up in the game, and if it does, if won't be something he actually has to roll for, so why waste the points?

At the same time, distributing points among Knowledges, sensory skills, social skills, mobility skills, etc. is a very meaningful mechanical decision in character creation. Sure, I could replace those skills with DM fiat based on character background, ability scores, and roleplay, but D&D just ain't the type of game where that seems appropriate. A lot of the fun in this game revolves around rolling dice to deterime success of failure, and I don't see why that should be limited to combat situations.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

I voted for the Good riddance to Skills" option. They are one of my least favorite things about the 3.x system.

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.

I guess I'm in sort of the opposite camp.
For things that don't really impact the campagin (appraising a Gemstone, making a Map, etc.) I see no reason to even HAVE skills for that.

There are some "skills" that just seem inappropriate to actually spend points on. If a player wants his character to be a gemcutter, I don't think I'd ever tell him to buy ranks of Profession: gemcutter. It's probably never gonna come up in the game, and if it does, if won't be something he actually has to roll for, so why waste the points?

Exactly; ditto for the feats that bump-up skills, IMO.

I personally think it would work fine to have that premise worked into your backstory, or even into the ongoing campaign, and then let the DM adjudicate it from there.

I feel skills have given an "Easy-out" to the D+D system.

In older systems, the players would have to think about what they were doing ("I investigate the painting on the wall; is there anything unusual about it or behind it?".)

But now? A simple "Search" check can negate even that level of interactivity ("Do I find anything in the room? I rolled a 20 on my search check.").

 

[Greg K]

I would absolutely not play any version of DND that lacked a skill system in which individual skill ranks were purchased each level. The inability to purchase ranks in individual skills each level was one of the reasons that I originally left ADND and is a major reason that I will not play Star Wars: SAGA edition (as is the combining of skills)

 

[Psion]

In older systems, the players would have to think about what they were doing ("I investigate the painting on the wall; is there anything unusual about it or behind it?".)

But now? A simple "Search" check can negate even that level of interactivity ("Do I find anything in the room? I rolled a 20 on my search check.").

After enduring one too many games (not just D&D, mind you) with players reading every letter in a desk , checking every brick in a fireplace, and having to have the GM parse that all, I no longer see this as a bad thing.

Indeed, I find that style of play leads to tedious checking of everything you can. OTOH, I am all for rewarding players for well informed and clever ideas of how to use their skills, and will let the narrative inform the DC of the skill rolls or otherwise how it's handled. But I don't find "search everything you can" encouraged by the old "describe everything you search" style of play to be fun.

 

[Delta]

Yes. It's the #1 thing I've wanted slashed from the d20 System for a long time. In particular, the fiddliness of Skill Points plus bonuses aggravates me to no end as DM. (I might go so far to say that any form of point-based character generation will be broken in some way.)

Just make everything ability checks and I'd be okay.