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

[SteveC]

Exactly!

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."

Of course, what you're forgetting are games like this:

Player: "Even though it is windy, I try to start a fire for our camp."
DM: Sorry, you can't do that.
Player: What? My character was born and raised on these plains, I've lived outdoors all my life.
DM: That may be true, but starting a fire in conditions like this is very difficult. When I was in Army Super-Secret Special Forces, we had an 18 week training course in starting a fire in the wind, and half the group failed the final exam. Oh, and you also decided to play a "fighter" rather than my "plains fire starter class" that I have written up on the back of a napkin from our last lunch at Wendy's. Can't do it, I'm afraid, because it's that class' core ability.
Player: But you only made that up last week, and we've been playing this game for six months! And we have a no multiclass rule!
DM: Hey, who's wearing the Viking Hat here?

You might not believe that things like this happen, but I have seen this happen countless times in countless ways over the years.

A skill system isn't a one-size-fits-all fix for these sort of "mother may I" problems, but it's a start.

Out of all the GMs that I currently play with, I think I'd trust one of them to run a game with no real skill system, the rest would be a nightmare to play under, because instead of a nice rulebook that I can read at my leisure, I'd have to read the GM.

Just my $.02,

--Steve

 

[Korgoth]

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.

Of course, what you're forgetting are games like this:

Player: "Even though it is windy, I try to start a fire for our camp."
DM: Sorry, you can't do that.
Player: What? My character was born and raised on these plains, I've lived outdoors all my life.
DM: That may be true, but starting a fire in conditions like this is very difficult. When I was in Army Super-Secret Special Forces, we had an 18 week training course in starting a fire in the wind, and half the group failed the final exam. Oh, and you also decided to play a "fighter" rather than my "plains fire starter class" that I have written up on the back of a napkin from our last lunch at Wendy's. Can't do it, I'm afraid, because it's that class' core ability.
Player: But you only made that up last week, and we've been playing this game for six months! And we have a no multiclass rule!
DM: Hey, who's wearing the Viking Hat here?

Wow. Both of you guys like simultaneously discovered that some people are too immature to be able to handle role playing games. That's totally uncanny.

Yes, clearly if your players are developmentally 8 year olds and/or your DM is a complete toolbox, your role playing game is going to suck. Next issue.

For my time and money, skill systems aren't worth the trouble. And they don't even begin to solve the issues you guys just brought up.

 

[megamania]

without skills what is a rogue?


I would want skills to be in my game system. These clarify a charcters background more and in some cases how to roleplay them.

 

[SteveC]

Wow. Both of you guys like simultaneously discovered that some people are too immature to be able to handle role playing games. That's totally uncanny.

Yes, clearly if your players are developmentally 8 year olds and/or your DM is a complete toolbox, your role playing game is going to suck. Next issue.

For my time and money, skill systems aren't worth the trouble. And they don't even begin to solve the issues you guys just brought up.

Well, I hate to break this to you, but what I'm talking about are the majority of GMs that exist in the world. All of the examples I've seen have been with gamers in the 21+ age group...heck, many of them were with GMs over 40 with a wife, kids, and a very normal life.

One of the primary reasons that skill systems and highly detailed systems of play were developed was just for this reason.

Now I gave a very extreme example, but things like this happen all the time when your GM just has to wing a skill system. In cases where there is neither a skill system, nor an extremely robust task resolution system, the GM has to make rulings on many issues off the cuff all the time. Even a very good GM will have his opinions on "the way things should work" and that's something that's perfectly fine in general, but when it predetermines the options that a group has, it becomes a bad thing. It also leads to situations where characters are either far too powerful or can't do anything, even if the GM is a nice and reasonable person.

Are these "bad GMs?" I'd say no, they're just GMs that come to the game with a particular mindset, which is far too often one that they don't talk about, and may not even know that they have.

--Steve

 

[Jeysie]

Plus, even if your DM is the most awesomely fair DM in the history of the game... it's still much quicker just to say, "Give me a (whatever) check against DC (number)."

It also depends on how much combat you do, I guess. In my group's campaigns, if we had to handle every skill-related situation without dice, we almost might as well just be playing freeform.

Peace & Luv, Liz

 

[FireLance]

without skills what is a rogue?

In 1e, he would be the guy with a fixed percentage chance (that went up with level) to Pick Pockets/Climb Walls/Hide in Shadows/Move Silently/Find & Remove Traps/Open Locks/Hear Noise/Read Magic.

In 2e, he would be the guy who was allocated some points at 1st level and at every level he gained thereafter to improve his (initially fixed) chance to Pick Pockets/Climb Walls/Hide in Shadows/Move Silently/Find & Remove Traps/Open Locks/Hear Noise/Read Magic.

 

[howandwhy99]

I use either use a Class system or a Skill system. Both work well for the types of game they are designed for. Classes define competence by archetype. Skill systems allow the player to dictate competence or incompetence depending on their build. Unfortunately, class systems have less differentiation, while skill systems provide min-maxing opportunities.

I think 3e demonstrated well the inability of the two to work in unison. Far too often high level characters could be not only the greatest fighter or wizard in the land, but also the greatest of any number of occupations completely outside of archetype.

I think 4E will take a more (WEG) d6 Star Wars approach and bundle skills and insure competence by archetype. It means less flexibility, but it's not like abilities and point totals can't be ad hoc ruled at each table.

Skill systems and Class action systems are not fun for me when they begin to simulate actions the players can take at the table. Physical actions are one thing, but knowledge (int), social interaction (cha) and doing the right thing at the right time (wis) should be a test of Player ability IMO. Dice shouldn't be rolled to see if you play the game better. The players will never improve unless they are tested.

 

[howandwhy99]

In 1e, he would be the guy with a fixed percentage chance (that went up with level) to Pick Pockets/Climb Walls/Hide in Shadows/Move Silently/Find & Remove Traps/Open Locks/Hear Noise/Read Magic.

Yep. Rogue was the first supplemental core class and added skill differentiation to the game. He was also the weakest class by far and his XP requirements showed it. He got 6 abilities that were d%-based vs. d6-based and the ability to improve those point by point each level.

But those 6 skills pretty much were the Rogue character. That's all he was. His Fighting ability sucked; he couldn't cast spells; and unlike the Cleric who could do both, he couldn't heal or turn undead either.

This is part of the reason folks either like or don't like Rogues. They are the tomb raider extraordinaire. Instead of everybody searching through dungeons, now only one class / player did. And half the game became one player's expertise. That can royally suck. But when it comes to anything else, the rogue sucks.

3e made rogues near as good as fighters in fights and then made any trap searching impossible for anyone but rogues. This only compounded the faulty belief that every character is judged by their ability in a skirmish game.

 

[pawsplay]

In 1e, he would be the guy with a fixed percentage chance (that went up with level) to Pick Pockets/Climb Walls/Hide in Shadows/Move Silently/Find & Remove Traps/Open Locks/Hear Noise/Read Magic.

In 2e, he would be the guy who was allocated some points at 1st level and at every level he gained thereafter to improve his (initially fixed) chance to Pick Pockets/Climb Walls/Hide in Shadows/Move Silently/Find & Remove Traps/Open Locks/Hear Noise/Read Magic.

Those are still skills.

 

[Derren]

A skill system is necessary for serious roleplay.
You might be able to wing things like "I start a fire" but please tell me how you handle the following scenarios without skills:

Situation the local lord is giving a costume ball today and a rogue thought that this is the best opportunity to rob the manor.

Plan: After I make sure that the distant relative of the lord can't attend the ball I forge an invitation to it and pose as him. With the mask I will be wearing no one will recognize me as they haven't seen that relative in years. To make the disguise more convincing I will higher a local harlot to pose as my concubine. When I am in I will mingle with the rest of the guest for a while (note, keep on eye on the harlot). I made a little research about the country the relative lives in so I probably can answer basic questions if someone asks. If not I'll make something up, those people won't listen anyway.
After a while I will talk with the lord (note make it so that it would embarras him when he doesn't talk to me) and after a little small talk admire his wealth and hope that he tells me where the real treasure is kept.
After that order a lot of wine ovwer the evening (pour it into some plant) and pose as drunk and drag the harlot to a hidden place. There knock her out and tie her up. Can't let her wander around unattended. Then loot the lords room any any other rooms which can be reached safely (note, check if the lord keeps the keys with him at the ball and snatch it if possible). After that go to the kitchen, drop the loot into the waste and leave. The next day go through the waste and retrieve the loot.

So how do you decide if that works or not? Abitrary decisions? "Rolling under the ability score" which when the attributes are maxed is a auto success?