I like many things about d20 system-based games, but I get an ear bleed when I look at the skill sections. Shit like this:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/climb.html#_climb

Does anyone really care about this level of detail? Can anyone even remember such rules? Have you ever had a player pound his fist on a skill entry to argue your DC call as a GM? Does this benefit the game in any way?

Why is that complicated to you?

To me it looks like a set of guidelines so that DCs will be somewhat consistent from group to group accompanied by a tiny handful of commonly encountered modifiers.  I don't see any particular issue with using that in play.  As for remembering it, that's what good GM screens are for.  If a group played for a while and that stuff came up a lot, then yes, everyone would know all that by heart.

To me that rule is not exactly light, but it's nowhere near heavy.

Have players ever argued DC calls?  Yeah, once or twice.  I find it happens less with examples like the one provided, because it tempers GM bias.

There's all kinds of 'bad' about d20 skills, but most of it has to do with the way ranks are acquired - that's fiddly accounting and seldom worthwhile.  But example DCs are excellent.  

First off, the only thing that typically matters is 'what is the DC of the obstacle I'm currently encountering'.  That's a simple consideration when creating an adventure.  Example DCs help maintain a consistent game-world.  If you successfully climb Everest, you'd expect you're likely to be able to climb Kilamanjaro.  If you can climb a glass wall, you'd expect you can climb a vine-covered wall pretty easily.  

So yes, I use DCs as presented.

95%+ of the time I set my own DCs by fiat*, but I will occasionally glance over the listed ones to ensure I stay in the right ballpark. My made-up DCs are rarely more than a couple points off the 'official' DCs.

*Well for 4e I have a system for setting DCs between 8 and 42, and that's pretty much the range I use for PF also.

Hell yeah.

Now I'm one of those folks that come at it with the philosophy of "the DCs is mostly what we call guidelines," and used to be a bit confused by people who would treat it otherwise.

My only objection to Pathfinder's particular implementation is that it has a few too many skills and gives some classes too few skill points. Fantasy Craft does it a bit better. But at its core, it's a pretty good skill system. In fact running it for so long put me off of ever playing systems like BRP ever again.

I find that the Climb DC Modifier sub-chart to be kind of redundant after reading a Climb DC chart with 8 different levels of difficulty (each accompanied by a full sentence to describe it).

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;747223I like many things about d20 system-based games, but I get an ear bleed when I look at the skill sections. Shit like this:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/climb.html#_climb

Does anyone really care about this level of detail?

Sure, why not?  This gives the player and the DM information that they both can use.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;747223Can anyone even remember such rules?

Why not?  It's not like this system hasn't been around for 14 years.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;747223Have you ever had a player pound his fist on a skill entry to argue your DC call as a GM?

Sometimes.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;747223Does this benefit the game in any way?

Why wouldn't it?  This gives the player and the DM information that they both can use to make informed decisions about either their character's actions or the gameworld.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;747223I like many things about d20 system-based games, but I get an ear bleed when I look at the skill sections. Shit like this:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/climb.html#_climb

Does anyone really care about this level of detail? Can anyone even remember such rules? Have you ever had a player pound his fist on a skill entry to argue your DC call as a GM? Does this benefit the game in any way?

I don't, not anymore. The Skill Ranks, skill points distribution between levels, the uses of skills defined by edges, not by center, all that shit just rubs me the wrong way now. That's the first thing I'd like to throw out were I to run d20 again.

Quote from: Benoist;747244the uses of skills defined by edges, not by center, all that shit just rubs me the wrong way

What do you mean by this?
The way I understand the skill system is that you set chances of success or failure based on the particular edge of the task.
Unless you mean that there are too many different skills in D20, some rather stupid I dare say, which I totally agree with this. IMO skills should be no more than 6 or 7 general ones, while having the option of special training to grant bonuses for specific tasks.

I almost never even read those sections let alone use them as written.

When a player wants to use them, I am happy to let the player read it, and inform me of what the rules state.

Then I make a judgement call; if the rules as written are appropriate to the situation in game, I use the rules.

If not, I just make a call.


I have gm'd many, many 3X and 4E dnd games where the players knew the rules far better than I did.

I consider it helpful when a player reminds me of a rule.

Quote from: Benoist;747244I don't, not anymore. The Skill Ranks, skill points distribution between levels, the uses of skills defined by edges, not by center, all that shit just rubs me the wrong way now. That's the first thing I'd like to throw out were I to run d20 again.

There's all kinds of things to fix about d20 skill systems, and I agree with what you're saying here.  But the OP is talking about description of what tasks correspond to what DCs (specifically for climb - but as an example of level of detail).  

What I'd hate to see is something like 'Climb - This skill determines whether you can climb something.  High is good'.  

That doesn't do anything to define whether climbing a cliff or a dungeon wall should be REALLY high or only moderately high.  Since I've never climbed a dungeon wall in real life, I wouldn't even begin to know how to set the task for near-super-humans.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;747263Since I've never climbed a dungeon wall in real life, I wouldn't even begin to know how to set the task for near-super-humans.

You don't.  The DC is the same for weakling humans, normal humans and near-super-humans.

You set the DC for normal humans, and the appropriate attribute modifiers enhance the skill accordingly.

As a player I will use whatever system the DM wants to use, no problem.

As a DM, I don't use skill systems in conjunction with classes anymore. The two methods work at cross purposes creating a game that doesn't know if it wants to be simulationist or abstract and generally is a hot mess.

The idea of "class skills" and "cross class skills" is ridiculous. A class ability should be part of the class else why bother with them?

Furthermore In a class based game, nailing down every little ponderous activity that is capable of being done to the nth degree is a waste of time.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;747273As a DM, I don't use skill systems in conjunction with classes anymore. The two methods work at cross purposes creating a game that doesn't know if it wants to be simulationist or abstract and generally is a hot mess.

The idea of "class skills" and "cross class skills" is ridiculous. A class ability should be part of the class else why bother with them?

Furthermore In a class based game, nailing down every little ponderous activity that is capable of being done to the nth degree is a waste of time.

I was thinking about why I like BRP and GURPS as well as OD&D 'clones' but don't want to run any of the later versions of D&D that seem to feature elements of all of them... and what you've written here pretty much covers it.

I looked at 3.X's skill descriptions once and it have me eye cancer.