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

[Lanefan]

The problem is that there are several types of "skills" in the game, some of which are necessary and some of which are overkill:

Past professions/secondary skills (e.g. gemcutter, brewer, etc.) - the game needs these for flavour and character background, and they sometimes become relevant in roleplaying. 1e sort of has this right; an expansion of that system is fine.

Class-based skills (e.g. Ranger's tracking, Thieves' open-locks, etc.) - the game needs these for the relevant classes only. Keep 'em in some form.

What I call "everyman" skills (e.g. swimming, riding, literacy) - the game needs these in a very basic form only, to define what your pre-adventuring abilities are like or - in the case of literacy - whether you have the skill at all. Keep 'em, and allow them to improve with training.

Other skills (e.g. Diplomacy, Knowledge-xxxx, Spellcraft, etc.) - the game either does not need these at all, or can easily adapt them into ability checks. Ditch 'em.

Lanefan

 

[Harmon]

My two copper coins-
I miss GURPs.

I like skills heavy games, no arguments with the players, just simple- "do you have the skill?" None of this- "but my characters father was a..."

Just because the father can- doesn't mean a thing to what your skill level is so get over it.

With regards to 3x - I like the skills. Play without them? Doubtful.

 

[RFisher]

Sure, I played D&D without a general skill system just last year.

After a couple decades of playing skill-based games, I've managed to discover many of their disadvantages. Gave me a whole new appreciation of class-based games. (Or—as I tend to think of them—very-broad-skill–based games.)

I still like skill-based games and even hybrids like Rolemaster or 3e, but when I'm playing D&D, I'd rather skip the general skills.

 

[Wik]

Really, I don't care one way or the other. In D&D, Players tend to only choose "Useful" skills for their character, and that's kidn of lame. If I spend points so my character can be a farmer (because it makes sense for the character), I'm essentially taking points away from spot, listen, and whatnot. So I'm penalizing myself for RP Purposes.

When we played 2e, we used proficiencies as a sort of shorthand to say what you were good at. While you could just as easily (if not moreso) abuse it, we never did; we had farmers, craftsmen, armourers, and everything in our group. Hell, we even had a PC who owned and operated a wagon business (and that was his RP hook!)

If I had to choose a skill system, I'd go for the one in Earthdawn. Each PC got a few skills that were knowledge skills, and they were very broad - and selected to showcase your character's background. You also got an artisan skill - what you were good at CREATING. And all those "Active" skills were already factored into your character.

with 3e, I've been thinking about creating a system similar to that, where PCs got knowledge skills (profession, knowledge, appraise, forgery; skills that are neat, but seldom used) and Active skills (Hide, Move Silently, etc...). I also thought it'd be neat to get rid of Spot, Listen, and Search entirely, and instead have them progress by class (so that you don't put points into them; since they're pretty much required anyways).

But that's just me.

 

[Melan]

I have played in skill-less D&D games and would do it again without blinking. It is not a serious issue. That said, I like skills, but not all of them - the idea of regulating social interaction with them isn't to my taste. Gather Information/Bluff/Intimidate/etc. isn't something I want the rules to cover.

 

[Zogmo]

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Korgoth
Player: "My character is a renowned gemcutter."
DM: "OK."
Player 2: Well I want to be an expert gemcutter, armourer, chirurgeon, apothecary, herbalist, wheelwright and boatswain.
Player 3: My character is great at picking pockets and hiding in shadows. My class is fighter but I have 15 dex so that's okay, right?
Player 4: Well I'm a sage and I've researched all monsters. My class is also fighter.

Both of these are very true. Skills must be in. I believe the Shadowrun system is the best as Mieric and ehren37 pointed out.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well... I could play OD&D or another system the rules of which focuses more on combat, but for my tastes it is usually quite essential for a long campaign to have rules that cover "everything other than fighting and casting spell". As such I voted NO. Of course it doesn't have to be THIS skill system, it could be different from my favourite, which is the 3.0 version.

 

[FireLance]

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.

Well, on the basis of that definition, I don't think that D&D needs a skill system, and my decision whether or not to play D&D would not be influenced on whether there is a skill system or not.

Based on what I've read so far in this thread, a number of people have equated a skill system with a non-combat task resolution system. While a skill system is certainly one way to resolve non-combat tasks, it is not the only way. There is the old standby, DM adjudication, although a skill system is arguably more transparent, consistent, and requires less effort on the part of the DM. Another possibility is to have the ability to resolve certain non-combat tasks as racial or class abilities, such as detecting secret doors, opening locks, hiding in shadows, or tracking. However, a skill system is arguably more flexible and open-ended. Other non-combat tasks, such as puzzles and "roleplaying" challenges, could also be resolved by direct player input. Again, the advantage of a skill system is that it allows a player to play a character with an ability that he is not himself very good in (a socially inept player with a high-Diplomacy character, for example), but this advantage is not unique to this skill system.

That said, as some other posters have pointed out, the skill system in its current incarnation has been used to model characteristics that is is perhaps not best suited to model. For example, "background" skills and abilities which are defined mostly for flavor and which seldom (if ever) provide a mechanical advantage to a PC ought not be obtained through the expenditure of skill points or some other character resource. Other "skills" which are commonly used by PCs in the course of general adventuring (such as Spot and Listen) should arguably be improved automatically as the PC gains levels without requiring the player to choose to improve them.

Following this line of thought through its logical conclusion, it means that there may only be a small number of actual abilities that the skill system in its current incarnation models very well. Ideally, the skill system should retain its transparency, consistency, flexibility and open-ended nature, while focusing more on abilities that are more important to the PCs, and possibly relying on another mechanic to give PCs an advantage for their backgrounds, should it become relevant in-game.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

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.

QFT

This last sentence reflects my own sentiments. I've played from the Basic Set through all of the following editions to where it is now. I love the current skills system and the fact that skills are worth putting a lot of thought into and that they are actually relevant in game play, not just for down time between adventures or as "filler" for your character's background.

 

[kensanata]

Personally, I like using no skills at all. When I played M20 with my players, however, they all complained about a missing skill system. Now that we've played 3.5 for about a year, I starting to think about changes I'd make.

In short, I'd shorten the list of skills in certain areas; most of the effect would be to reduce the number of rogue skills by creating some replacement skills with very broad application; unify Craft, Profession, and Knowledge, and so on. The net result would be that there no longer are any cross-class skills and everybody gets the same number of skill points. Simplification of the system without throwing character customization overboard.