D&D 5E The skill system is one dimensional.

[Pedantic]

I think the negotiation is quite clear there. You began negotiation of appropriate action scope, defined by the stakes, followed by a negotiation of consequences.

In that particular example you've systematized much of the consequence negotiation, but you can imagine a situation the PC does not approve of a proposed consequence for an action and tries another action declarations in response.

My proposed model is a system that more closely resembles action declarations in combat, albeit with less tightly controlled time scales per action declaration.

 

[kenada]

I think the negotiation is quite clear there. You began negotiation of appropriate action scope, defined by the stakes, followed by a negotiation of consequences.

I was expecting something about seeking permission, but the only requirement is that stakes and consequences have to follow from what’s been established already in the game world, and they have to be within the capabilities of those performing them (either the PC attempting the Skill Check or the agents enacting the consequences). If it’s that there’s some back and forth before we arrive at understanding of what is to be resolved, then okay. That’s a negotiation.

In that particular example you've systematized much of the consequence negotiation, but you can imagine a situation the PC does not approve of a proposed consequence for an action and tries another action declarations in response.

Sure, and it’s happened. Until the dice are rolled, the Skill Check is incomplete and the situation in the game world has not changed. A couple of sessions ago, Deirdre wanted to scout the area around their camp. When I pointed out that she risked drawing the attention of raiders who were looking for them, she decided not to go ahead with it. Of course, nothing stop sone of the other PCs from barreling forward anyway, and that’s what happened. Dingo went up in the tree, and the raiders noticed a little, anthro fox guy up in a tree.

That seems preferable to the situation where the player declares an action and rolls, the GM narrates the result, and the player is upset because the result didn’t match the mental model of the game state they had. The point of foregrounded consequences and transparent resolution is to make sure everyone is on the same page about the game state, what’s at stake, and what’s at risk.

My proposed model is a system that more closely resembles action declarations in combat, albeit with less tightly controlled time scales per action declaration.

Something like Pathfinder 2e’s skill system with various actions and activities defined for skills (except presumably with some kind of standard for determining DC rather than what level of challenge the GM wants)?

 

[Shardstone]

They aren't in 5e, that's for sure.

The edition that must not be named, on the other hand...

Bruh ppl online talk positively about 4e all the time now, no need for dramatics.

 

[Shardstone]

Yep. They should remove the skill subsystem entirely and only use the abilities. Classes get trained in two abilities (from their saves) and they should get that bonus for all ability checks. Done. No need for the weird skill subsystem.

This is exactly what my current system project is based on

 

[Shardstone]

Imo skills are fundamentally opposed to dnds class system more so than anything. Take out skills and give me more exciting buttons go push. Id rather make a handful of skills into small subsystems for modular play, like animal handling, investigation, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Bruh ppl online talk positively about 4e all the time now, no need for dramatics.

That is not my experience.

At all.

As in, almost exactly the antithesis of my experience.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'll agree with everything but the Adventure path advice. Adventure Path advice only works if the party is of standard build and abilities. take away any one expected class and thier abilities and your DM who hasn't been on top of things won't be any better off with adventure path stuff.

Fair enough.

 

[Scott Christian]

PC wants a species that can fly? It tells us they don't care about story hurdles that involve being unable to access certain areas. So DMs should just stop using them as story fodder. PC takes Proficiency, Expertise, and Advantage in Perception? It tells us that they've probably been burned so many times by DMs constantly "taking them by surprise" (because it's fun for the DM?) that they don't want to be surprised ever again. PC ever and always has 'Comprehend Languages' and 'Tongues' prepared as spells? They probably are tired of the "can't understand the person they're speaking to" story trope and want to get around it if the DM constantly tries to use it.

I would say this is only partially true. There are many players that have no idea what they want because they have never been on the other side of the screen. Give them constraints, such as PHB only and no feats, and suddenly they have one of the best campaigns they have ever played. It's the Ragu spaghetti test all over.

My point is, it often takes being on both sides of the screen to determine what kind of game one likes.

I would also take umbrage with how the DM is portrayed in your post. In my experience, a DM that puts the gate in, or some unknown language, or something difficult to find is never playing gotchya. They are adding to the world. They are allowing those PCs to shine by getting the group through the gate, by allowing them to spot the sneak attack, or by allowing them to be the only one to know the language. They are also having the group use resources, which is a part of the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would say this is only partially true. There are many players that have no idea what they want because they have never been on the other side of the screen. Give them constraints, such as PHB only and no feats, and suddenly they have one of the best campaigns they have ever played. It's the Ragu spaghetti test all over.

My point is, it often takes being on both sides of the screen to determine what kind of game one likes.

I would also take umbrage with how the DM is portrayed in your post. In my experience, a DM that puts the gate in, or some unknown language, or something difficult to find is never playing gotchya. They are adding to the world. They are allowing those PCs to shine by getting the group through the gate, by allowing them to spot the sneak attack, or by allowing them to be the only one to know the language. They are also having the group use resources, which is a part of the game.

I really don't think being on both sides of the screen is what does it. Mostly because I had this experience without going to the other side of the screen.

What it takes is playing different kinds of games. There are a lot of people who have only played 3.X and 5e, which are very similar systems for better and for worse. That leaves people with simply a lack of context for answering the question. To know what things truly delight and excite you, you need to do and try a lot of things. And it may be the case that you won't enjoy a lot of those things. That's fine! But I can't tell you how many times I've had to deal with someone (not just in TTRPGs) who was utterly convinced that they only liked X thing, or couldn't possibly enjoy Y thing...and then when they actually tried something outside the limits of X/actually gave Y a shot, suddenly their whole view changed.

The Ragu test is not one that gets changed from making your own spaghetti sauce. It is one revealed by trying many different kinds of sauces.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is exactly the thing I do not want a skill system to deliver. This is a mediocre push your luck dice game with extra descriptive text. The optimization case is trivial, and the decision making is mostly pointless. The only context I can imagine enjoying this as a player is full illusionism; if a DM can persuade me that a unique gamestate was the result of each choice, while using this resolution on the backend without revealing it, I might be able to avoid solving the game. If this is transparent, then I really don't care.

I agree with you. Minigiant's format appears to me to be that "Skill System Mini-Game" I talked about originally that was nothing that I wanted. Reason being that the players spend more time looking at the rules and mechanics of the system, rather than just interacting with the DM in character (1st person, 3rd person, doesn't matter). I'm of the opinion that the players describe what their characters do or how they act or what they say to accomplish their goal, and if the DM feels a check is necessary, they will call for one (and it will get rolled). Then the DM will narrate the next section of what is occurring based upon the results.

That may very well end the "challenge" right there. The players made a strong choice, came up with a great idea, and the roll made for it was also extremely successful. So the DM says they got what they wanted only after a single roll. That to me is absolutely fine! We don't need to go through the additional rigamarole of looking for three more "successes" because the Skill Challenge Mini-Game requires it. It's a waste of time and again turns the focus away from the narrative into just scanning your character sheet trying to find skill buttons to push.

Now do a I think that a less-experienced DM who might not know how or when to end a scene, could benefit from the '4 successes before 3 failures" model? Sure! It's an easy way to remember what it can take to successfully achieve a goal, and it also gives less-experienced players a way to guide them towards roleplaying actions that are trying achieve that goal. The DM says "describe for me what you want to do to maximize your chances of climbing up and over that 30 foot castle wall, and if four of your ideas succeed before three do not, you will accomplish it." The players now have signposts to follow on their way to learning how to describe actions towards goals without even needing to be prompted by the DM.

(And I think it is important to note that I specifically said "four ideas" to succeed and not "four skill checks". We want the ideas (as part of the narrative and story of the scene) to be the thing the players are trying to come up with... not four numbers on their character sheet to go searching for. That just completely separates the game out from the story and there's no longer a point to having the story in the first place.)