Now there are some things introduced in 4E that I don't like (Roles + Powers mainly), but other aspects of the game that I am quite ambivilant about. Skills are one them. The thing is that the fully integrated Skill list was only really introduced in 3E, which at the time seemed like an epiphany had finally been reached in the game. Every other game around was a skill-based by that time, so why shouldn't D&D finally catch up?
However, Castles and Crusades changed my mind about it somewhat. The thing is, D&D isn't a skill-based game by tradition - it's a Class and Level based system and the only true Skills we saw for the Thief went up by level. Some people think this is unrealistic - but then they can freely choose to play RuneQuest if they prefer otherwise. Moreover, skill ranks and lists themselves are, in truth, just as much of an abstraction as 'Class and Level' are. It's just a different way of doing things.
Now if you manage to base a system on the Six core Abilities with a bonus determined by Class and Level (in a manner similar to Castles and Crusades SIEGE Engine, or 4E's 1/2 Level bonus), it does make the game a little bit simpler. Moreover, if you remove Skills and Feats from the core rules - and rely strictly upon Class Ability options presented within the Class description itself - it does cut out two rather massive chapters of the book and reduce the complexity (and page count) quite substantially.
Controversial? Maybe, but here's a poll and thread to say what you think!
Meh, the skills chapter in 4e is THE shortest chapter of the PHB. Simple, direct, folds in your old thief skills and a few other things into a few broad strokes that quickly tell you a good bit about what your character is about and how he approaches the world. Its very little complexity added compared to the amount that is gained.
You can argue that no skills at all remove a layer of abstraction and puts the player more in touch with the fantasy world, but you can also ask questions like "why do we have attributes?". The answer is because we want to create imaginary fantasy selves that have their own inner life, and we want to be able to have hooks on which to build that fantasy person.
This is why I like the 4e style short list of 'skills'. I put quotes around that for a reason, because they aren't really skills. Nobody in the real world is good at "Athletics" or "Thievery" or "Perception" as a skill. Those things are code words for the kind of person your character is. Is he one that confronts problems with vigorous physical action? Is he one that is sly and quick with his hands? Is he watchful and observant? What is his typical M.O.? Does he get what he wants by lying and bluster (Bluff), conciliation and negotiation (Diplomacy), or threats and cajoling (Intimidate)?
I think if there's a real criticism to be made against the way 4e did it is simply that the idea isn't fully formed. I think instead of having skill modifiers in 17 skills it would be better to simply note which way the character does things. Is he a Bluffer, a Negotiator, or an Intimidator by nature and when there's a social interaction let that dictate the flow the interaction. If the situation dictates a different approach then said character's Charisma is simply less effective.
This works for knowledge too. Is the character more studious, more intuitive, or more perceptive/insightful. Rarely does someone who is studious know all about one field and nothing about others. Certainly not in a medieval sort of world where all knowledge was held to be part of one whole (the term 'University' is a medieval scholastic term referring to the teaching of the universal knowledge, there were no separate subjects in the medieval university, everyone had one course of study). Other people use intuition and common sense reasoning instead of book learning, and others rely on careful observation and study. Again, the approach and the situation can determine how effective a given character's intellect is in a given situation.
We can repeat this exercise with people's approach to physical challenges. Do they bull through with strength, do they win through with persistence, or do they rely more on agility?
Maybe not all of these things DO need to be broken out from ability scores, particularly the physical skills feel pretty redundant, but I think the social ones are particularly interesting in what they can tell you about your character. So maybe in essence what we need is something that in the end looks more like 'traits' than skills per-se. Once you do that you can relegate the details of "which things does my character know" to something like 4e's backgrounds where you can simply define a general area of knowledge your character has based on his profession or upbringing. If a player needs to get more precise and narrow that down and create a PC who's an expert on Birds or something then they just write it down and the DM always gives you accurate information on that specific thing.
