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

[Khairn]

Play without any kind of skill system? Good heaven's NO!

Now the level detail in within the system is a debatable subject, but having no skills at all would be ... like eating a hamburger without the bun. Sure you can eat the beef without a bun, but its so much better with it included.

 

[tankschmidt]

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. <snip>
Second, not everyone finds the 3X skill system to be as challenging as you have described it to be for yourself.

Perfect consistency is far from necessary in my book. Not every language is as easy to decipher, not every knot is as easy to tie, and not every town guard is as easy to trick. It's the referee's job to assess the situation and come up with a reasonable response. No memorization required!

As far the 3x skill system being challenging? I'm not sure if you were making fun of me, but surely anyone can add up skill points. But making those decisions can be pretty time consuming. If my character is dissolved by acid slime mid-adventure, I'd rather roll up a thief with no skill points than a rogue with 32+.

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.

I've heard that the new Star Wars game has done pretty well with skills. I haven't played it, but it seems similar to the prime system in C&C, even if more detailed.

Why would creating a character keep you from getting into the dungeon? Why would you even want to get into the dungeon without having a character you really want to play? Why would you want to play a character who isn't even different from the other fighter as far as the system is concerned? Oh, I loved those video games back in the day where the only difference between two characters was the color of their shirts, but these days, I want something more. And character building is something that allows me to bring the fun of the game home with me: it doesn't take up time during the game itself, other than the first session (and even that isn't a given... it's perfectly reasonable for players to create their characters at home and just bring them to the table with things like point-buy). The ability to create a more-detailed character (so long as those details are in the right places, which admittedly isn't always true with 3.X) is a plus.

I think this is a difference of gaming philosophy. I've noticed that lots of players come to the table with a "finished" character, and if they are playing WoTC's D&D, perhaps with an idea of a "build" of what levels that character would take. In my gaming group, a character is "built" during his adventures in the dungeon. The time he saved the wizard from that orc arrow, the time he stood down that charging minotaur, and his favorite shield he found in the Temple of Ayn-Rah. Hm. That might not make a lot of sense - let me know if my answer didn't satisfy your questions.

I'd been playing RPGs for eight years or so before that, all with completely skill based systems. In fact, until I picked up the Wheel of Time d20 RPG, I'd never seen a game with a class system before. Maybe that is why I see a skill system as vital to a game I'm interested in playing.

You know that's interesting. I always had a hard time getting into skill-based games. I wonder whether one's experiences with that genre affect what they think of skills in D&D.

 

[BryonD]

Perfect consistency is far from necessary in my book. Not every language is as easy to decipher, not every knot is as easy to tie, and not every town guard is as easy to trick. It's the referee's job to assess the situation and come up with a reasonable response. No memorization required!

You are missing the point.

The exact same level of consideration is required whether the system is written down or not. If the referee does a good job with an ad hoc system then there will be consistency and the modifiers from a written system will be included in the assessment. If these are left out then the result will be all over the place and fall far short of what many (I'd say far and away most) of us want in terms of a satisfactory game experience. If they are accounted for then the ad hoc system isn't any easier than the formal one. So it is a lose or break even scenario.

The break down in your comparison is that you are just declaring one to be difficult and the other to be easy. It ain't so. The same judgments apply either way(Unless the ad hoc is done really badly, which is easier. But it sucks. And you can easily do the 3X skill system badly as well, so still no change).

As far the 3x skill system being challenging? I'm not sure if you were making fun of me, but surely anyone can add up skill points. But making those decisions can be pretty time consuming. If my character is dissolved by acid slime mid-adventure, I'd rather roll up a thief with no skill points than a rogue with 32+.

You can't have it both ways. If you find spending 32 skill points to be game stopping then that is your statement.

I'd rather spend 2 minutes (tops!!!!) spending 32 skill points than have a cookie cutter thief.

 

[Desdichado]

I will follow in your footsteps and make sure that anytime someone repeats something that has been said before to call them on it and insist that only unique and original things are posted.

No need to get snarky.

Psion's right, the roleplaying/rollplaying thing was clever in 1995. Maybe. It hasn't been for a long time, and it is kinda an invitation for a fight, honestly. It's a vaguely insulting characterization.

Of course, I first saw it on rpg.net back when insults were ok, and even expected. And it was probably old then.

 

[Jackelope King]

I think this is a difference of gaming philosophy. I've noticed that lots of players come to the table with a "finished" character, and if they are playing WoTC's D&D, perhaps with an idea of a "build" of what levels that character would take. In my gaming group, a character is "built" during his adventures in the dungeon. The time he saved the wizard from that orc arrow, the time he stood down that charging minotaur, and his favorite shield he found in the Temple of Ayn-Rah. Hm. That might not make a lot of sense - let me know if my answer didn't satisfy your questions.

It's a difference in gaming philosophy, which is what I was trying to illustrate.

In my mind, most of the fun does indeed take place at the table. Philotomy Jurament and I had a discussion about this recently, and the conclusion we reached is basically that there's a difference in how invested a player is in his/her character. If a character is merely a vehicle by which the player gets to take a trip into the wierd and wonderful, one which is little more than 6 stats on a character sheet and a hit point total, then yes, the style of play you describe makes sense to me. It doesn't, however, appeal to me.

For me, a character is a unique entity through which the player experiences the wierd and wonderful, and the ways in which that character interacts with the wierd and wonderful (and even the mundane) is part of the appeal. The character's abilities and personality serve to inform the player's decisions and actions, and through the actions which the character takes, the players are able to experience the growth and development (or decline and regression, in some cases ) of that character. Sure, we'll tell stories about that time that Shump the half-orc barbarian chopped someone in half once or twice, but we all remember the time that the big, dumb Shump decided to moon the bandits as the heroes escaped over the lake, only to take a heavy crossbow bolt to the butt. Or the memorable time in a supers game that the psychic ninja was introduced to Seinfeld, and questioned whether she should laugh at Kramer because, "That man has ammusing hair."

It's entirely a matter of playstyle. But for me, the more chances I have to make the character described on the character sheet in front of me interact with the world the GM is describing in the way that I envision that character interacting with it (for better or for worse), the happier I am. And when I can take my character home to level up or to spend a few more points that I earned, I essentially get to take the game home with me. And that's pretty darn sweet.

 

[sniffles]

I could play it, but I'd miss skills if they weren't part of the core rules.

I like skills. I like using them to define/refine my character. I don't like leaving them up to the GM to adjudicate. It makes more work for the GM. I'd rather have some codified rules for things like Jump or Sense Motive, so we don't end up with something bizarre.

 

[Voadam]

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?

I look forward to your explanation of how the 3.5 skill system handles all this.



One option, profession thief check, you get "half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work."

 

[The Human Target]

I would never play any RPG without a skill system again.

The first time I played a 2E dwarven fighter, I was amazed at how boring the game was and how little control I actually felt I had.

Plus, I like to think of RPGs as games. Having skills be subject solely to DM fiat makes me feel like I'm playing make believe, not a game. And just like in make believe, the biggest kid (the DM) gets to call all the shots. And that aint fun to me.

I'd like to keep skills, but restrict it to just trained skills. Untrained skills that are merely extensions of natural abilities (Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, etc) would be based solely on attributes. As would the trained-only skills, but they would not have ranks. They would just be based on the attributes as well.

I do agree with this.

No way. My group runs a lot of combat-light campaigns, plus we love coming up with unique solutions to things, so getting rid of the skill system would pretty much hose three-quarters of our play. If anything, I'd love to see the skill system expanded, and things like combat even made more skill-oriented, similar to the Fallout SPECIAL system.

Peace & Luv, Liz

And this.

 

[Spatula]

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 used to crawl, too. Now I prefer walking.

I, personally, see the current edition as an improvement over what has come before. Yes, I used to play D&D without skills (aside from thieves & secondary skills), and later with NWP (and the seperate system for thieves & bards). Now we have a D&D with a central, consistent resolution mechanic, and it's a good thing.

Moving around skill points is just an onus. I want to get into the dungeon, not spend an hour writing up my character!

Just max out your skills, then. That is essentially the SW Saga system, except that it also gives heroes some basic proficiency with all skills based on your character level.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I don't mind, ultimately, either way. I voted good riddance because I'm not nuts about 3Es version. A more universal, easily applicable system for tallying what a character knows would be appreciated.