D&D 5E What I think I'm going to do about skills

[DEFCON 1]

Once again I DM'd several slots of D&D Next at PAX East this year, and I've definitely come to the conclusion about what I do and do not want to do about skills if/when I run the next edition. Having done the "skill list" thing in 3E, 4E, and now in the final open playtest packet... I've come to the conclusion that I'm tired of it and I don't find it that interesting or indicative of character. They aren't really doing what I feel they should be doing.

This was highlighted for me just looking at the character sheets, where the skill lists on each pre-gen appeared right below the ability scores and attack bonuses... while the Background (and the background's associated 'trait') were several sections away on the sheet. So while the Background provided the skills that the character had... they really weren't of a piece. The Sailor background might have given out the X, Y, and Z skills to the player... but in use, the use of those skills when they came up had really nothing to do with being a Sailor. There was no connection between the mechanical use of the bonus and the fluff of the background that provided it. And it felt really, really unsatisfying. Instead... it was only when the party was dealing with a series of boats and I made the arbitrary decision to let the Sailor roll with advantage on several checks when dealing with the boats that it felt like the background meant something. And I technically had to go outside the skill rules (as they currently stood) to do so.

It's been a problem for me for several years now, where having a skill didn't feel like an organic character choice, but instead was just a mechanical number to add onto the occasional roll. A PC has a low dexterity but knows acrobatics. What does that mean? What's the point other than numbers? Why does that not seem to inform said PC as the game plays out? I've found that I want a Rogue with a Priest background to feel a certain way when it plays... and it most definitely should feel different than a Cleric with a Guild Thief background. But right now with the skill system as-is... that isn't happening. A Rogue with a Priest background is playing just like your prototypical rogue, but who gets a bonus point or two when making a Religion roll. Having an identifiable "background" really means nothing to the character. It's just a title heading on a couple rules.

I will admit that I am also playing in a Fate game right now... where your background (through Aspects) are the absolute focus of who your character is and how your character mechanically plays (so for example if you are a 'Thief in service to his god'... then almost everything you do in the game is reflected through that prism.) And I've found that to be much more satisfying a play experience for me. And it makes me hope against hope that the rumors of 'Aspect-like' modules appearing in the game that you swap out the basic skill system for, do in fact show up. Because I really want being a Sailor, or a Blacksmith, or a Soldier, or a Nobleman, or a Guide to have an organic and cultural, emotional, and spiritual impact on who your character is, rather than just the name of a batch of skills you gain small bonuses for.

 

[The Human Target]

I'm all for totally ditching them and just using ability checks.

 

[Actoba]

Doesnt it all really depend on the players you have?

I'm still relatively new to all this (started with the DnD Next playtests and am now DM'ing for a few different groups...never played any previous versions) but i've found quite big differences between the groups I'm running.

The first group is very focused on being "better", punching stuff in the face and generally getting every advantage they can in a given situation. This includes what skills and backgrounds they pick.

A second (and larger group) has a wider variety of personalities in it. There is at least one player, that similarly to the first group, thinks more tactically and and picks what he thinks he "needs" to make his character "better" and plays it that way too....but I also have several players that embrace the "character" part much more and their playstyle and characters personality and decisions reflect this much more.

I would imagine that DM'ing for a set of random people at a Con you are more likely to have people rely more on the mechanics of their character rather than the "character" of their character?

All that having been said i've had a few of my players (some of whom do have prior experience of other editions and systems) also remark that they found the skill system a bit flat/boring/uninspiring. of course this only refers to the last playtest packet and it may change for the full release so a part of that may be because we're only running a mini campaign (or 2) between now and the full release so they are still trying out the different characters/mechanics/etc.... in preparation for a full campaign starting once we have the full ruleset.

Thus far in my short dm'ing career i've tried to encourage all my players to embrace their characters and and imbue them with some personality based on their decisions, bacground/backstory, etc....but i've accepted that for some thats a difficult ask. So i've very much seen the problem described by the OP I think it's mainly a factor of the players you have rather than the rules themselves. I would probably house rule some stuff depending on the people i had playing and the experiences we had....though thats probably much more difficult if you are running stuff for random people at a Con i'd imagine as you would only have a short time to get a feel for what they wanted from the game and how they played

 

[Ruzak]

An open or at least much larger skill list let's your sailor have skills like nautical navigation & sailing, which speak more directly to the background. These come up more rarely, and so need a major boost so you realty sooner when they do come up.
Of course you need the ability check system to be good enough so you can still do the general things like "perceiving."

 

[ExploderWizard]

Welcome to simplicity.

In my OD&D game, backgrounds are used to cover all kinds of skills as well as character class concepts. Ranger, thief, assassin, etc. are all backgrounds. Classes remain broad archetypes and there are only three; fighter, cleric, & magic user.

Having backgrounds separated from class leads to all kinds of interesting combos. The cleric ranger, the magic user soldier, the fighter scholar, etc.

 

[Halivar]

I plan on using 13th Age backgrounds if I can.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am also not a fan of skill lists, and for similar reasons. There's also a bit of "memorize this arbitrary group of abilities and be aware at all times of the bearing they have on your character!" that I'm not a fan of. I don't think FATE-style free-form is quite for me, either, but I appreciate the benefits it brings. And I don't know that straight ability checks are as fun for me, either, though, again, I can see the appeal (simplicity, for one).

So I'm a little stuck. I want it to be more codified than "roll your own," but also avoid the "bit arbitrary list of things everyone needs to know" syndrome.

What I've been tentatively thinking about is a grid:

	Explorer	Warrior	Face
Town	Gather Information: You can learn what is on the lips of folks in town.	Intimidate: You can cow others with threats of violence	Diplomacy: You can convince nonhostile creatures to help you out.
Wilderness	Survival: You can harvest food and drink from the natural world and learn about your surroundings	Endurance: You can ignnore fatigue and exhaustion, and withstand travel hazards	Wild Empathy: You can understand the intentions of wild creatures, and convey your own intention to them.
Dungeon	Stealth: You can sneak up on your enemies, and ambush them.	Dugneoneering: You know about history, architecture, and underground terrain.	Con: You can deceive others and hide your true intent

...or something vaguely similar. At any rate, they're not a d20+mod, they're more like a 4e power, you can just do it. And then relocate "lore"/knowledge skills and crafts in classes, perhaps, as separate mechanics.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Codified skill lists are a bit of a game balance measure. By ensuring that everyone has at least three of these twenty generic skills, you know that the character will be able to shine in a reasonable number of situations that will show up in any game. It's a bit of a stretch to say that every sailor is good at exactly Athletics, Sleight of Hand, and Survival, but the alternative is that every sailor is good at "sailor-y stuff" - which is unlikely to show up in a good number of campaigns.

The question is really, where do you want the DM to improvise? Do you want the rules to say that you're good at whatever stuff is related to your background, and then rely on the DM to make that relevant regardless of the campaign? Or do you want the rules to say that you're good at these generic types of things, and rely on the DM to cover the obvious gaps where your background really should apply?

I think the latter choice requires far less effort on the part of the DM - it's almost always a case of "your training really should apply here, so go ahead and add your proficiency bonus" - while also being much more fair to the player.

 

[Mistwell]

An open or at least much larger skill list let's your sailor have skills like nautical navigation & sailing, which speak more directly to the background. These come up more rarely, and so need a major boost so you realty sooner when they do come up.
Of course you need the ability check system to be good enough so you can still do the general things like "perceiving."

Or you could just have your background be "Sailor" and if you are in a situation that could reasonably draw on your sailor training, the DM can give you an ad-hoc bonus based on guidelines in the DMG.

 

[Derren]

These come up more rarely, and so need a major boost so you realty sooner when they do come up.

Why do skills and backgrounds need to be balanced?