D&D 5E Skills Should Be Core

[Majoru Oakheart]

Setting "at best" aside though, the concept of playing a published adventure is contrary, in my opinion, to the very nature of the game. If a DM solicits people to play in his game and then runs a game that someone else created, it violates the social contract. It's like someone inviting you over to watch a movie, sticking a DVD in, and then going out with some other friends and leaving you alone. In the literal sense, you are watching a movie (or playing D&D), but the person's lack of caring and investment is hurtful and socially unacceptable.

When I sit down to play D&D, I sit down to play D&D...not this DM's version of D&D.

When a DM runs an adventure written by someone else, they are still in the room with you and are still participating. They adjudicate. improvise, and modify the adventure according to things happening in the game and decisions made. They aren't abandoning you. They are just doing less of the work themselves.

To continue your analogy, I think it would be like the DM saying, "Hey, come over and we'll watch a movie" and then when you show up and he puts a DVD in and says, "You'll love this movie. I directed it." Most people think "That's awesome, we get to see a movie directed by our friend!" You're implying the social contract should be: "Wait, I thought you were going to write, direct, film AND star in this movie yourself. You never said we were going to watch some Hollywood movie written by some Hollywood writer that you merely directed. Thanks for abandoning us."

I mean, I'm not saying that ISN'T your group's social contract. But I can tell you that isn't everyone's. Nor is it very common. I've seen the GenCon RPGA room filled with nearly 1000 people playing Living Greyhawk where nearly all of them were playing the exact same adventure. I've talked to the people whose entire GenCon is playing or running prewritten adventures for 28 hours....that they paid large amounts of money to fly out and do. I've been to conventions that people have planned all year just to make it a big event to have a premiere of an adventure that attracted people from other countries.

 

[Stormonu]

I have to agree with what others have said. If running published adventures is bad GMing, I've been "doing it wrong" for now over 30 years. And when I was running my "mountain" campaign, which was a vast dungeon-world complex. A game, which I'll note, lasted three years.

I have to say, that for me, published adventures was where I saw the game world "in action" - it was active examples of play. Without the likes of Keep of the Borderlands, Ravenloft(!), and the like, the D&D rules would have likely just sat on my shelf as a odd curiosity. And I thought - and still think they are overall pretty good adventures, despite the occasional campiness or gaff they may have.

 

[billd91]

I'm going to agree with the OP - some kind of skill system should be in the basic game. Character classes/archetypes and level can provide the basic entry to skills appropriate to the class, but I think ability to branch off that as well should also be incorporated.

Frankly, I thought basing checks on a stat and picking certain broadly defined skills based on your class and background to be a little better at than a stat roll was doing fine. I don't think a more detailed skill system is really necessary.

 

[billd91]

When I sit down to play D&D, I sit down to play D&D...not this DM's version of D&D.

<snip>

I mean, I'm not saying that ISN'T your group's social contract. But I can tell you that isn't everyone's. Nor is it very common. I've seen the GenCon RPGA room filled with nearly 1000 people playing Living Greyhawk where nearly all of them were playing the exact same adventure. I've talked to the people whose entire GenCon is playing or running prewritten adventures for 28 hours....that they paid large amounts of money to fly out and do. I've been to conventions that people have planned all year just to make it a big event to have a premiere of an adventure that attracted people from other countries.

In a sense, yes, you are sitting down to play X DM's version of D&D even when you're playing Living Greyhawk. It's just that the DM for that Living Greyhawk campaign is a committee of people determining what sources are available, what adventures will be playable, and what other campaign rules are in effect. That's not just D&D - that's Living Greyhawk D&D and it's different from Grodog's Greyhawk D&D, or my Greyhawk D&D, or Gygax's Greyhawk D&D. Role playing games have pretty much always been this way - even though Gygax was hoping to generate a more consistent experience with the publication of AD&D (and maybe he succeeded to a small degree compared to looser rules in other editions), there's always going to be personal takes on the game, personalized settings, idiosyncratic rulings, different perspectives from each player, and so on. I would suspect that the number of games that go by the book on everything, always use published materials, and use those materials fully in sync with the publisher's intentions or expectations is vanishingly low.

 

[Derren]

But, no, I am uninterested in a Dungeons and Dragons game in which you didn't enter dangerous Dungeons and fight deadly Dragons. I see that as kind of a basic layer. "Core" one might say.

And you would still be able to do that, just use the optional combat module. What is the problem?
You can't tell me that all the new players have trouble understanding a skill system but grasp the combat system perfectly.

So if making skill system optional is there to keep it simple for new players then it only makes sense to make the most complex system of D&D, combat, optional too. You can always add it in, later. Sure, it requires a bit more work as every monster in every later publication will be statted for the simple basic combat rules and you of course can't use the optional combat in any form of living campaign, but as you have no problem to put the skill player into such a situation, that would hardly be an obstacle now, or?

 

[Obryn]

And you would still be able to do that, just use the optional combat module. What is the problem?
You can't tell me that all the new players have trouble understanding a skill system but grasp the combat system perfectly.

So if making skill system optional is there to keep it simple for new players then it only makes sense to make the most complex system of D&D, combat, optional too. You can always add it in, later. Sure, it requires a bit more work as every monster in every later publication will be statted for the simple basic combat rules and you of course can't use the optional combat in any form of living campaign, but as you have no problem to put the skill player into such a situation, that would hardly be an obstacle now, or?

Again, if your Dungeons and Dragons game can't handle Dungeons and Dragons out of the box, you've failed at making a Dungeons and Dragons game.

I'm with [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] - skills don't mesh well with a class/level system. That's D&D's strength.

I can picture Malcom from Jurassic Park at your game: " Excuse me. Will there be any actual dungeons in this dungeons & dragons game?"

Seriously, why D&D then? The D&D game isn't ideally suited for, and was never intended to be the game for ALL fantasy roleplaying. You can do a lot of things with it but choosing D&D for "avoid dungeons at all costs" gaming is like shooting hoops with a volleyball. You can certainly do it but there are other options better suited for the job.

D&D is a group of strong archetype fantasy adventurers exploring dangerous places in search of wealth & power. You can branch off of that but the game functions best when used largely for that intended purpose.

The notion that D&D has to be ALL of fantasy roleplaying has screwed up the game more than anything else over the years.

Insanely enough, I agree with everything you say here.

-O

 

[Viking Bastard]

Sign me up with the 'Skills dont complement D&D at all' brigade.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yeah I was thinking the same exact thing.

I'm also fairly certain the D&D WAS defined by the adventures. Get a group of role-playing strangers together and I'm sure that they'd listen with semi-polite disinterest to the awesome homebrew campaign that I played in for years. Mention Tomb of Horrors or Keep on the Borderlands or The Village of Hommlett and watch the tales of high adventures and peoples various / shared experiences come out.
With 3-3.5 and Pathfinder it's adventures like Sunless Citiadel, Forge of Fury, Red Hand of Doom, Rappan Athuk, Tomb of Abysthor and Burnt Offerings, Hook Mountain Massacre and Stolen Land.

But hey, Lowest Common Denominator and all that.

My experience has been literally the exact opposite. If I said that I was running any of those adventures, my group would cooperate because they trust me, but they'd be very skeptical about it (and this includes players who had only really played APs prior to playing under me). If I say "here's my homebrew setting for this campaign" then I get bombarded with questions via texts, my Facebook Game group, etc. My players (no matter the group makeup) have always preferred that to any sort of AP.

It's weird how these things vary. I completely believe what you said is true, but what I'm saying its true, too. APs and dungeons just put my players on edge (and me, too), and not in a good way.

Players on average dont give a crap about the pages and pages of backstory that gets generated in a homebrew or the powerful NPC's that populate the world. If that stuff isnt incorporated into the game/story as it's being told then it's useless (at least to the Players and their PC's). Even running a published adventure there is STILL actual work to be done in making the adventure our own. There is LITERALLY no difference in dropping the PC's into a world of my own making and dropping them into the FR or GreyHawk or Golarion other than placating my own ego. And that's something that as an adult I'm well past.

Whereas my players love the 100 year background/history write-ups on the various nations and regions I provide, the developments that have happened over time, etc. And, even if this comes up pre-play (and not much in play, though that'd be rare), it'd inform them of what is typical in the world for personalities, what they're likely to find, etc. in the game. Thus, even if it never comes up as the "game/story is being told", it is so far from useless to my group that I can't say that I can relate to your point, here.

It's not about boosting my ego; I'm about as arrogant and confident a person as you'll meet anyways, and I wouldn't be offended if all of my players insulted me for my campaign stuff (or mechanics, even, as we're using my RPG). It's about creating a world that I like, that I can relate to, that I have complete interest in. It's a creative outlet, not a way for me to boost my ego.

Is there room for me to move around in Greyhawk and make it mine? Sure, I did when I was new to DMing, and it turned out really well. Do I like homebrew worlds a lot more, as I can pick and choose what players should expect a lot easier? Definitely. It's a creative outlet for me in a much more free-form sense, and that's just my personal preference. It's not wrong for you to use APs, but when you're claiming that someone else is being "disgustingly arrogant and condescending" by implying that your way is "wrong" (as if it could be), why take a shot at people like me by implying that I just do it to massage my ego, and that I'm not as adult as you are?

No real call for all the "badwrongfun" and "onetrueway" feel to these posts, so far as I'm concerned. Neither of you are wrong, and neither am I. It's just play style. As always, play what you like

 

[Warbringer]

Is there room for me to move around in Greyhawk and make it mine? Sure, I did when I was new to DMing, and it turned out really well.

I think people on these boards forget this part: there are lots inexperienced and soon to be DMs that need the chance to grow into their own ideas. Published worlds/APs really, really help

 

[Derren]

Again, if your Dungeons and Dragons game can't handle Dungeons and Dragons out of the box, you've failed at making a Dungeons and Dragons game.

You can handle dungeons and dragons just fine. Only in a very simple way. Want to have the gazillion of spells and powers and whatever? Just use the optional combat module.
See how silly this is? Yet this is the actual situation you would want to put skills into.
And no, I do not buy this "skills are too complex". Combat is much more complex but suddenly, that isn't an issue any more.

If you want combat to be much more important than everything else, fine. But that will hardly gain you more players and instead drive even more of them away.
And thats why skills should be core. What is core defines how the game is played. There will of course be house rules, some of them optional modules, but every publication, every adventure and the living campaign will reference the core only.
So why shut out all players who want something more than dungeon crawl? Keep skills core and have a optional module for no skills. Thats more easy to use and adjust on the fly and keeps the core game interesting for more people.