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

[WayneLigon]

I think that some system of skills is the hallmark of a modern (or at least second generation) RPG and it's very unlikely that I'd play any RPG that did not feature some form of skill selection for characters. I've not seen an implementation I truly love and feel is perfect, but many that I've liked a great deal. 3E's skills system I generally like, though I think that there needs to be a general rethinking about how many skill points people get and what DCs constitute appropriate and meaningful DCs. I want to see a skill system that truly tells me who is a professional in their chosen field.

 

[Korgoth]

Not only would I happily play a version of D&D without a skill system, I'd be very reluctant to play one with a skill system. Race, class, ability scores, common sense, and ad hoc judgment should be able to cover everything a skill system does with a lot less bookkeeping and rules-memorization required.

Exactly!

Player: "My character is a renowned gemcutter."
DM: "OK."

You need to cut some gems? OK, you cut them. It's like "Taking 10" in D20 anyway. You have to cut a gem in a real hurry for the king and it has to look flawless and unique? OK, roll 1d20 under your Dex or Int (your choice) to see if you do a perfect job or just a good job (if you couldn't do at least a good job, you wouldn't be doing it in the first place).

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."

 

[Delta]

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.

 

[Flynn]

I voted "Yes, I could play it, but I would miss it." Essentially, 1st Edition AD&D was like that for me. I did not play with secondary skills (an optional rule out of the DMG), so I was essentially playing without skills (except that Search was a 1d6 and Thieves had percentile-based thief skills), and I had a great time.

Now that I've played with Non-Weapon Proficiencies (the skill system of 2nd Edition), Skill Points from D20, Skill Levels from Classic Traveller and other Traveller editions, GURPS and HERO System skills, Trained skills from SW Saga, and a lot of other systems, I like the versatility outside of combat that a skill system can give you.

So yes, I could play without skills, but I'd miss them. (I hear C&C is like that, in general. I'm equally good at anything based on Dexterity, no matter what it is, under that system, that kind of thing.)

On the flip side, I could play a completely skill-based system without classes, too, but I'd probably miss classes as well.

I like what skills can add to a game. Some do, some don't, and I'm okay with that. When I'm at your table, I can handle it either way. At my table, I'll probably have some kind of skill system, just because I like having them for the non-combat aspects of my campaigns.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I would gladly play an RPG without pre-defined skills.

I would play an RPG without a skill system if it had a good universal resolution mechanic.

I would play a version of D&D without any skill system, because I only play D&D and its close relatives when I want a great Tactics/RPG experience.

I would gladly play a version of D&D without NONCOMBAT skills; losing combat-relevant ones would bother me somewhat because the tactical engine is compromised if the GM has to make a judgment call.

 

[Agamon]

I was going to say yeah, I'd play RC. But then I remembered RC has a rudimentary skill system.

I'd play Dread which has no quantified skill system. So a simple D&D game wihout it wouldn't be too hard to do. That said, I have only a few quibble's with 3.x's skill system, and it looks like they're being addressed in 4E.

 

[TerraDave]

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

In D&D in olden times, thiefs had one way to listen, and everybody else had another way. Elves and halflings one way to sneak, theives a second way, rangers implicitly a 3rd way, and no else could sneak at all. Now lets throw in "secondary skills", hay, how bout ability checks, oh wait, non-weapon proficincies, oh and that thing from D&D RC, ya, throw that in.

D&D has long had non-combat do-hickys that might require a check. Should these be done ad-hoc? Or systemically?

 

[Mark Chance]

Played D&D that way just fine for years.

 

[SavageRobby]

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 would normally buy that argument, but when talking about the latest iterations of D&D, where you can be a Cleric 2/Fighter 3/Magic User 3/Rogue 2/Whoseywhatsit 3 ... then it doesn't wash with me. Talk about gimme-everything-I-want-it-all.



As for me, no skill system is fine. I like C&C's way of doing it (no skill system per se, but a resolution mechanism). I also like the Savage Worlds system, which is a highly simplified skill system.

 

[Clavis]

Exactly!

Player: "My character is a renowned gemcutter."
DM: "OK."

You need to cut some gems? OK, you cut them. It's like "Taking 10" in D20 anyway. You have to cut a gem in a real hurry for the king and it has to look flawless and unique? OK, roll 1d20 under your Dex or Int (your choice) to see if you do a perfect job or just a good job (if you couldn't do at least a good job, you wouldn't be doing it in the first place).

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."

Amen!