Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6289613" data-attributes="member: 7006">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.</blockquote>

Verification