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

[BryonD]

Role-playing, augmented by ad-hoc dice rolls (based on my judgment of the likely chance of success, modified by the character's stats, the player's described actions, and the vagaries of the specific situation) at key junctures

I've played this way before. And it can be very fun.
However, my personal observation is that it is just a skill system that is not written down.
And that is what you have described.
At its best this just models a written down skill system and at its worst it can become a haphazard mess.

 

[tankschmidt]

I've played this way before. And it can be very fun.
However, my personal observation is that it is just a skill system that is not written down.
And that is what you have described.
At its best this just models a written down skill system and at its worst it can become a haphazard mess.

Even if one were to concede that Mr. Foster's example is nothing more than a model of a written-down skill system, it comes with several advantages over such a system. One, no flipping through books to find target DC's, lists of synergies, or modifiers. And two, no substantial amount of time micromanaging skill points on your character sheet (or worse for each monster entry!) at character creation and at each level.

Personally, I'm a little surprised that 1 in 3 people polled wouldn't play D&D without skills. Isn't that the way we all used to do it? I do think that some sort of resolution mechanic is handy however, whether it be percentiles, attribute checks, or even C&C's prime system. Nonweapon proficiencies are pretty meh - more than anything, they're pretty much a list of things you can't do. Moving around skill points is just an onus. I want to get into the dungeon, not spend an hour writing up my character!

 

[grodog]

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?

Already playing it (AD&D basically has no skills, as noted), which is fine for D&D for me. I like skills-based systems, too (CoC, Amber, WFRP, Blue Planet, etc.), but I've found skills to be one of the things in 3.x that I've both liked and disliked. For me, they move the game too far away from its class-based roots (where thieves [and assassins and monks]) are the only ones able to pick locks, etc., so in general I'd ditch them. I do like the definition for physical skills that allow 3.x to model swimming, climbing, jumping and such rather well. But that's not sufficient for me to keep the whole system around, FWIW.

 

[BryonD]

Even if one were to concede that Mr. Foster's example is nothing more than a model of a written-down skill system, it comes with several advantages over such a system. One, no flipping through books to find target DC's, lists of synergies, or modifiers. And two, no substantial amount of time micromanaging skill points on your character sheet (or worse for each monster entry!) at character creation and at each level.

If they are perfectly consistent then yes. (except the micromanaging just comes back a different way) And if that is true then they have done the a greater amount of memorizing than an acceptable understanding of a written down skill system requires.

It is just a shell game.

Personally, I'm a little surprised that 1 in 3 people polled wouldn't play D&D without skills. Isn't that the way we all used to do it? I do think that some sort of resolution mechanic is handy however, whether it be percentiles, attribute checks, or even C&C's prime system. Nonweapon proficiencies are pretty meh - more than anything, they're pretty much a list of things you can't do. Moving around skill points is just an onus. I want to get into the dungeon, not spend an hour writing up my character!

Couple things:
First, as I said above, for me the answer is no because I'd simply play 3X.
Second, not everyone finds the 3X skill system to be as challenging as you have described it to be for yourself.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Already playing it (AD&D basically has no skills, as noted), which is fine for D&D for me. I like skills-based systems, too (CoC, Amber, WFRP, Blue Planet, etc.), but I've found skills to be one of the things in 3.x that I've both liked and disliked. For me, they move the game too far away from its class-based roots (where thieves [and assassins and monks]) are the only ones able to pick locks, etc., so in general I'd ditch them. I do like the definition for physical skills that allow 3.x to model swimming, climbing, jumping and such rather well. But that's not sufficient for me to keep the whole system around, FWIW.

And what about a former apprentice to a locksmith? What, my Fighter, Cleric, whatever couldn't have spent a few years learning the basics? (Hey, he started when he was 7, plenty of time to learn something and then switch!)

My biggest problem with 3E is that there just aren't enough skill points. As others have suggested, there ought to be some set aside for flavor skills only, or something of the sort.

 

[Greg K]

Personally, I'm a little surprised that 1 in 3 people polled wouldn't play D&D without skills. Isn't that the way we all used to do it?

Lack of skills was one reason that my friends and I stopped playing DND after being exposed to other systems.

 

[FireLance]

Even if one were to concede that Mr. Foster's example is nothing more than a model of a written-down skill system, it comes with several advantages over such a system. One, no flipping through books to find target DC's, lists of synergies, or modifiers. And two, no substantial amount of time micromanaging skill points on your character sheet (or worse for each monster entry!) at character creation and at each level.

It is possible to have a skill system that minimizes the disadvantages you mentioned. The Star Wars Saga Edition skill system, for example, cuts down substantially on the number of synergies and modifiers that apply to a skill check, and on the need to micromanage skill points. Instead of assigning skll points at every level, a character simply chooses a small number of Trained skils, and may spend a feat to be Focused in a trained skill. There is a standard formula for skill modifiers: half character level + relevant ability modifier +5 (if Trained) +5 (if also Focused). You may still need to wing some of the DCs, but that is no different from an ad hoc system.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

And what about a former apprentice to a locksmith? What, my Fighter, Cleric, whatever couldn't have spent a few years learning the basics?

I might handle that PC background by giving him the ability to pick locks as a 1st level Thief. Similarly, I might grant a PC with a "miner" background the chance to detect unsafe ceilings or tunnels, etc. (similar to the Dwarf ability). I might give a PC with a "Hunter" background a chance to track, et cetera.

I find detailed skill systems unnecessary in D&D, adding overhead without enough benefit to be worth it. YMMV, of course.

 

[Hairfoot]

I'm in the "good riddance" camp. If a character isn't able to define his particular talents and abilities within the campaign without a detailed system of points and awards, I'd see it more as a problem of rigid and unimaginative DMing than a fault with the system.

Roll on, C&C.

 

[SteveC]

I'm in the "good riddance" camp. If a character isn't able to define his particular talents and abilities within the campaign without a detailed system of points and awards, I'd see it more as a problem of rigid and unimaginative DMing than a fault with the system.

Roll on, C&C.

...and if that works for you, that's great.

The thing is, I'd rather actually know what my character can and can't do without having to rely on my GM's imagination and good will.

There's nothing wrong with playing a fiat heavy game, I can come up with a character background that let's me do just about anything I might want if I put some work into it, but it all comes down to if the GM believes me enough and takes enough stock in my descriptive abilities. I'll take some basic rules for skills, thankyouverymuch.

But YMMV, and obviously does...it's all good in the end.

--Steve