I was thinking about 3e saving throws today and, as always, a method of simplifying the cumbersome 3e skill system. An idea came to mind, based on the 4e-style system of defenses. In the 4e system, you have your three defenses, which are based on the higher of two stats: Fortitude is Strength or Constitution, Reflex is Dexterity or Intelligence, and Will is Charisma or Wisdom. Classes get a bonus to these. Personally, I like this because it allows more character diversity without having to worry about whether your character sucks (you can have a smart fighter and wise wizards, which is always good).
My thinking is that this could be extended to the rest of the system. On top of those abilities, you could have Wits (Wis/Int), Cunning (Int/Cha), Guile (Dex/Cha), and so on. Want to smash something? Roll Fortitude. Want to pocket a blade? Roll Guile. Want to see if you know something? Roll Wits.
And since these all get better as you level up, you can completely nix the skill system, instead keeping track of a broad set of descriptors.
Quote from: Azure Lord;562796I was thinking about 3e saving throws today and, as always, a method of simplifying the cumbersome 3e skill system. An idea came to mind, based on the 4e-style system of defenses. In the 4e system, you have your three defenses, which are based on the higher of two stats: Fortitude is Strength or Constitution, Reflex is Dexterity or Intelligence, and Will is Charisma or Wisdom. Classes get a bonus to these. Personally, I like this because it allows more character diversity without having to worry about whether your character sucks (you can have a smart fighter and wise wizards, which is always good).
My thinking is that this could be extended to the rest of the system. On top of those abilities, you could have Wits (Wis/Int), Cunning (Int/Cha), Guile (Dex/Cha), and so on. Want to smash something? Roll Fortitude. Want to pocket a blade? Roll Guile. Want to see if you know something? Roll Wits.
And since these all get better as you level up, you can completely nix the skill system, instead keeping track of a broad set of descriptors.
I'm on board. I've always thought skills suited D&D very poory.
The best excuse there is about why D&D suddenly needed a "skill system" was that "everyone else was doing it" and to "be successful" D&D "had to have" a skill system. This is the same rationale behind putting a spoiler on your otherwise stock Honda Civic back in the 90s and it's an equally stupid line of reasoning. So an awful one was thrown on it in 2000, it got hilariously worse in 2007 with 4e, and is finally being taken off for the most part for 5e.
I think we should have a middle ground where disguise/subterfuge type skills are called "Pretend and Lie", weapon proficiency is "Hit Things With Other Things" and anything technical is "Do Technical Stuff".
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;562803I think we should have a middle ground where disguise/subterfuge type skills are called "Pretend and Lie", weapon proficiency is "Hit Things With Other Things" and anything technical is "Do Technical Stuff".
So FATE, then?
QuoteMy thinking is that this could be extended to the rest of the system. On top of those abilities, you could have Wits (Wis/Int), Cunning (Int/Cha), Guile (Dex/Cha), and so on. Want to smash something? Roll Fortitude. Want to pocket a blade? Roll Guile. Want to see if you know something? Roll Wits.
What does this do that just rolling a stat check doesn't do?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;562802The best excuse there is about why D&D suddenly needed a "skill system" was that "everyone else was doing it" and to "be successful" D&D "had to have" a skill system. This is the same rationale behind putting a spoiler on your otherwise stock Honda Civic back in the 90s and it's an equally stupid line of reasoning. So an awful one was thrown on it in 2000, it got hilariously worse in 2007 with 4e, and is finally being taken off for the most part for 5e.
There was a reason "everyone else was doing it" actually; skill systems in RPGs serve a purpose. Spoilers on Honda Civics, not so much. And technically there were "skills" in D&D a decade prior to 2000.
Don't forget there were those gods-awful tacked-on [strike]skills[/strike]
non-weapon proficiencies from 2E. Why they didn't just call them "skills" I have no fucking idea; it was like "Yeah, it's kinda like... your character can do stuff when they're not in combat, finally. So we've added some more, uh... proficiencies, for uh... not using weapons." Took some serious vocabulary impairment not to come up with the word "skills" there, but they managed.
By the same token you could do away with all the different different weapons listed in D&D and just have a damage rating for armed and one for unarmed.
But the thing is gamers like these details, they like the pretense of simulation even when it's really coarse or abstract.
The same goes for skills. Player enjoy pretense of simulation that comes from solving a problem using one's heraldry or history skill rather than just raw intelligence even if statistically it may have only made 5% or 10% difference.
Of course if you try to simulate everything in fine detail you end up with a very rules heavy game, which is fine for some people. But if you have a game highly focused on say combat or investigation it makes sense to have rules that are more detailed some areas and more abstract in others.
I like D&D's class/level approach best without any skill systems (no matter what you call them). I especially dislike it when a skill system is clumsily grafted on (as in AD&D's non-weapon proficiencies or Basic D&D's "general skills"). The best "skill system" ever proposed for D&D is AD&D's "secondary skills," and those are not much more than a broad description of a PC's background (yeah, you were a fisherman when you were growing up, so you know a bit about boats, weather, tides, nets, lines, fishing, et cetera).
I'm not against skill systems in RPGs, I'm just not a fan of them in D&D. I like other skill-based games like BRP, but to me that's a different approach and a different gaming experience. When I "play D&D," it's not what I'm looking for. If I wanted to mix class/level and skill-based approaches, I'd probably look to Rolemaster, which I think did the "hybrid approach" better than any version of D&D.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;562820The best "skill system" ever proposed for D&D is AD&D's "secondary skills," and those are not much more than a broad description of a PC's background (yeah, you were a fisherman when you were growing up, so you know a bit about boats, weather, tides, nets, lines, fishing, et cetera).
Agreed.
I like skills :( If my character is good at history I want something on the character sheet that says so. Otherwise it's a character that stabs things and incidentally knows as much history as anyone with the same ability score.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;562814Don't forget there were those gods-awful tacked-on [strike]skills[/strike] non-weapon proficiencies from 2E. Why they didn't just call them "skills" I have no fucking idea; it was like "Yeah, it's kinda like... your character can do stuff when they're not in combat, finally. So we've added some more, uh... proficiencies, for uh... not using weapons." Took some serious vocabulary impairment not to come up with the word "skills" there, but they managed.
And I liked NWPs (mostly because they were skills, not due to any specific brilliance of implementation or naming) :(
Quote from: vytzka;562827I like skills :( If my character is good at history I want something on the character sheet that says so. Otherwise it's a character that stabs things and incidentally knows as much history as anyone with the same ability score.
And I liked NWPs (mostly because they were skills, not due to any specific brilliance of implementation or naming) :(
I found NWPs an incremental improvement over previous iterations of D&D in which "adventurer" meant "useless clod who had to kill monsters for a living due to lack of any other viable talent" but in terms of implementation it was still far behind any game with a functional skill system.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;562833I found NWPs an incremental improvement over previous iterations of D&D in which "adventurer" meant "useless clod who had to kill monsters for a living due to lack of any other viable talent" but in terms of implementation it was still far behind any game with a functional skill system.
Oh, definitely, definitely. But it was a step in the right direction, inasmuch as that direction could fit in the AD&D paradigm. But then I'm also one of those weird people who REALLY like Skills & Powers (with a sufficiently paranoid GM).
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;562814Why they didn't just call them "skills" I have no fucking idea . . .
Because various
D&D authors said for years that
D&D didn't need a skill system. Calling them skills would be a tacit admission that TSR was chasing the market instead of leading it.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;562833I found NWPs...still far behind any game with a functional skill system.
Yep; that's the thing. I think that most people who prefer or are looking for granular definition and skills in their RPG would be better served by an RPG that is designed around a skill system, from the ground up. I know that's how I prefer to approach it, anyway.
Quote from: vytzka;562840Oh, definitely, definitely. But it was a step in the right direction, inasmuch as that direction could fit in the AD&D paradigm. But then I'm also one of those weird people who REALLY like Skills & Powers (with a sufficiently paranoid GM).
See, I would think that you would prefer a game that's *not* D&D. (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing.) I'd think something like Rolemaster would be more to your taste. (My "first choice" picks are OD&D/AD&D for class/level, BRP/RQ for skill-based, and Rolemaster 2nd edition for hybrid.)
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;562847See, I would think that you would prefer a game that's *not* D&D. (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing.)
You're right :D But it doesn't mean I can't have fun with D&D either, or examine things that I do like.
edit in response to edit: yeah RM2 was my next favorite thing after AD&D2e but I still have a soft spot for it.
I love Non-Weapon Proficiencies. These were great for helping define character concepts (i.e. making annoying special snowflake characters :) ). The rules for raising them were Scroogy, and you didn't quite get enough without extras from a kit, and some of them were pretty stupid (Fire Building...) but overall I hugely preferred them, however tacked on, to the 3E system where you got a mixture of concept skills and adventuring skills strongly limited by class (i.e. get ready to be reamed hard for taking something that suits your character) or 4Es bland, purely adventuring-driven skill list.
Most skill systems are a mix of 'stat rolls' and 'specialized talent/knowledge/etc'
So, A stat roll sytem is fine, but you need a way to modify it.
For example,
A charisma roll to haggle with a merchant still need a way to give a bonus to a charcate rthat spemt ten years as a merchant. for example.
Also, some skills are hard to do without practice, etc...
I like what 5e seems to be trying by more directly linking skills to abilities like 2e nwps and then given backgrounds and classes small bonuses to areas or sets of skills that are relevant. Looks like a variation on Castle and Crusades prime number system.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;562847See, I would think that you would prefer a game that's *not* D&D.
Welcome to every third post about D&D on TRPGS, Phil.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;562894I love Non-Weapon Proficiencies. These were great for helping define character concepts (i.e. making annoying special snowflake characters :) ). The rules for raising them were Scroogy, and you didn't quite get enough without extras from a kit, and some of them were pretty stupid (Fire Building...) but overall I hugely preferred them, however tacked on, to the 3E system where you got a mixture of concept skills and adventuring skills strongly limited by class (i.e. get ready to be reamed hard for taking something that suits your character) or 4Es bland, purely adventuring-driven skill list.
I am with you here. They also (at least in the case of the phb nwp) didn't interfere with RP but still provided support. For instance etiquette was rolled to see if you knew how to behave in a situation, but wouldn't ever replace the interaction. I was very surprised when I went back to NWPs how much I prefered them to the 3E skill system.
Ultimately, I want to be able to customize and flesh out my characters.
proficiencies, skills, talents, call it what you will.
I am happy if I have plenty of options.
Not abig fan of 'super general' skills, like 'Knowledge of everything' or 'skilled at all combat'
I like characters to have somewhat specific abilities that are tailored to the individual.
You can do skills in B/X or AD&D like HeroQuest. Write a backstory paragraph (within reason), everything in there will give a bonus on an ability check. If something happened in-story that is important enough to add to the backstory paragraph, add it at level-up.
For social interaction checks, bonuses for CHA/WIS (whatever) come from what the player says, plans, etc., in addition to anything in the backstory.
I know that there are those who lament the arrival of the DSG (Dungeoneer's Survival Guide) and the concept of non-weapon proficiencies, but I am not one of those people. I welcomed the new non-weapon proficiency system as well as other information in that book, and it's companion the WSG (Wilderness Survival Guide).
Quote from: Drohem;562915I know that there are those who lament the arrival of the DSG (Dungeoneer's Survival Guide) and the concept of non-weapon proficiencies, but I am not one of those people. I welcomed the new non-weapon proficiency system as well as other information in that book, and it's companion the WSG (Wilderness Survival Guide).
Those two books beyond the Manual of the Planes were my favorites as a DM.
I like having a stated character focus, myself. I still prefer taking things into attribute checks when I can, but I really liked Secondary Skills and NWP options. 3e/4e skills I didn't like so much; 3e became it's own silly minigame, and 4e had lvl inflation and tighter restrictions (I guess I really missed that general NWP table) that just sucked the wind out of it for me.
But NWP and Secondary Skills were fun, as long as they weren't adhered to like a gnat's ass. If they were loosely defined in your favor and allowed hand-waveium so you didn't have to roll an attribute check for something, I thought they were very useful. If they were interpreted to limit who could attempt to do what, then they sucked hard.
But I find myself also not liking d% v. d20. I really like the 5% increments of d20. That and unless the table reads d% as 2d10 backwards or forwards (or use an actual d100) I found it just to be a crappy 1d10 system. The tens place mattered far more with the ones place being a skill sink for real improvement. That and IME the sweet spot is around 65%, so BRPs/CoC flopped hard with multiple tables of friends -- they loved the setting, hated the system. So it was either focus hard or go home, 29% here or 37% there was often just a waste of time/points. I tried to help them through it, but I came to stop fighting it time and again and just went backwards<>forwards 2d10 or switch to d20.
Quote from: Opaopajr;562939I like having a stated character focus, myself. I still prefer taking things into attribute checks when I can, but I really liked Secondary Skills and NWP options. 3e/4e skills I didn't like so much; 3e became it's own silly minigame, and 4e had lvl inflation and tighter restrictions (I guess I really missed that general NWP table) that just sucked the wind out of it for me.
But NWP and Secondary Skills were fun, as long as they weren't adhered to like a gnat's ass. If they were loosely defined in your favor and allowed hand-waveium so you didn't have to roll an attribute check for something, I thought they were very useful. If they were interpreted to limit who could attempt to do what, then they sucked hard.
But I find myself also not liking d% v. d20. I really like the 5% increments of d20. That and unless the table reads d% as 2d10 backwards or forwards (or use an actual d100) I found it just to be a crappy 1d10 system. The tens place mattered far more with the ones place being a skill sink for real improvement. That and IME the sweet spot is around 65%, so BRPs/CoC flopped hard with multiple tables of friends -- they loved the setting, hated the system. So it was either focus hard or go home, 29% here or 37% there was often just a waste of time/points. I tried to help them through it, but I came to stop fighting it time and again and just went backwards<>forwards 2d10 or switch to d20.
With D100 systems like BRP or Warhammer you have to be ready to give modifiers. It's not dissimilar to NWP's or secondary proficiencies it's just not hardcoded like 3/4e. I think it's a nice middle ground.
It really works well when you have said skill at 29% and you take aim and make sure you have good strategic position and maybe yell "help me with this guy" to your teammates. Works well for me. Just sayin'.:)
I'm OK with skill systems in D&D as long as they don't step on other classes' toes.
My favorite is probably the AD&D 1e Secondary Skill list. Things that might be circumstantially useful, but won't have, e.g. a Magic-User outdoing the Thief at stealth or climibing or somesuch; and without a rigorous mechanic attached, allowing the DM to make rulings on the spot.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;562847See, I would think that you would prefer a game that's *not* D&D.
In my case, that's probably a fair assessment, but it's also fair to point out that I played very little D&D before 3e (and much of that was heavily modified by the GM) but both played and ran D&D 3.5 pretty much by the book and bought much of WotC's 3.5 line (and quite a few 3.0 books). The OGL helped make me interested in the game. So did D&D 3.5 having a working skill system that allowed me to play and run characters who could do more than simply what their class detailed. I'd probably agree that a skill system should be a removable option from D&D Next, but if D&D Next doesn't have some sort of useful skill system, even as an option, I'd be less likely to play it.
The best skill system ever devised for D&D was Katherine Kerr's version that appeared in Dragon magazine. The DM picks a character attribute he thinks is relevant, adjusts based on difficulty and rolls d% (though this could easily be converted to d20). Simple.
The way 4e handled skills was already basically just a stat check. Everyone added half their level plus a relevant ability modifier to the check. Some skills required 'training' to attempt a roll, and being 'trained' gave you a +5 bonus to the check.
That's the whole system. I thought it was pretty elegant, but could have used some work. Mechanically it was sound and simple enough, but they could have gone the 'Secondary Skills' route and offered background packages and guidelines on how to build your own to get bonuses on relevant background-related skills. None of the skills in 4e relate to the character so much as they do to the class, which to me seems to miss most of the impetus for having a skill system in the first place (to flesh out the character more).
Quote from: Daztur;562811What does this do that just rolling a stat check doesn't do?
The derived statistics improve with character level.
Basically, there are two reasons to add a skill system on top of an attribute system:
(1) To differentiate characters and allow customization.
(2) To improve capability without improving the underlying attributes
3E does both. This system only does #2. The playtest packet for D&D Next appears to only do #1.
Personally, I prefer the 3E approach: I like the differentiation and customization. And if combat abilities are going to radically improve (which they do in D&D), I prefer to see non-combat abilities similarly improve.
Quote from: Elfdart;562985The best skill system ever devised for D&D was Katherine Kerr's version that appeared in Dragon magazine. The DM picks a character attribute he thinks is relevant, adjusts based on difficulty and rolls d% (though this could easily be converted to d20). Simple.
I use this
all the time. Never knew it started from there. But I love adjustable attribute rolls something fierce. All I want from a d100% converted to a simpler die mechanic with probabilities adjusted in 5% increments.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;562833I found NWPs an incremental improvement over previous iterations of D&D in which "adventurer" meant "useless clod who had to kill monsters for a living due to lack of any other viable talent" but in terms of implementation it was still far behind any game with a functional skill system.
I find the assumption that my character is a useless clod offensive. There was a time when pcs were assumed to have a moderate level of competency and thee was no nee for the use rope skill just to tie a rope to a tree. Outside of highly specialized skills like particle physics, there's no need for skills. My fighter should know how to sharpen a sword without the waponsmithing skill. My ranger should be able to start a fire in the rain. Skills systems are an unnecessary complication in D&D.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;562841Because various D&D authors said for years that D&D didn't need a skill system. Calling them skills would be a tacit admission that TSR was chasing the market instead of leading it.
Old School auto enthusiasts don't NEED fuckin' seat belts.
JG
Quote from: Drohem;562915I know that there are those who lament the arrival of the DSG (Dungeoneer's Survival Guide) and the concept of non-weapon proficiencies, but I am not one of those people. I welcomed the new non-weapon proficiency system as well as other information in that book, and it's companion the WSG (Wilderness Survival Guide).
I have those books too. Recently I played with a guy who wanted to use the outdoor/climate/relative temperature rules, and I suddenly realized WHY nobody else used them. :D
JG
Empire of The Petal Throne has my favourite D&D skill system; simple and pulp fantasy as hell.
But I generally don't fart around with skill systems, as I prefer individually adjudicating skill situation via ability score, class and the PCs background & adventuring experiences + common sense + a simple die roll.
You want a PC that's smart about books? Be lucky enough to roll a hight Int and pick a bookish class, but if you have a Fighter or Thief with a 15+ Int? Sure, they can be a scholar.
You want to be a good merchant? Have a good Int & Cha and put effort into merchanting.
I don't need to clutter up the game session by bolting on some mechanical system that could end up with wonky results like 3E Inspector Clouseau ladder hijinks or Diplomacy Jedi mind tricks; or have PCs dying of hypothermia for not purchasing Fire Building.
Quote from: The Butcher;562946I'm OK with skill systems in D&D as long as they don't step on other classes' toes.
My favorite is probably the AD&D 1e Secondary Skill list. Things that might be circumstantially useful, but won't have, e.g. a Magic-User outdoing the Thief at stealth or climibing or somesuch; and without a rigorous mechanic attached, allowing the DM to make rulings on the spot.
I like that approach, and I like that table, but I personally find it too "prosaic" for the milieus I DM.
Quote from: James Gillen;563211I have those books too. Recently I played with a guy who wanted to use the outdoor/climate/relative temperature rules, and I suddenly realized WHY nobody else used them. :D
JG
They are overly involved, I admit. But I found with a little memorization and some simplification I do like the direction. It gets players to take off their armor! That's really important for me. Suddenly being dressed appropriately outside the city is as important.
But then I could never truck people wearing their plate or chain mail everywhere. It was something that annoyed me heavily when I first played D&D. And I'm also that crazy player on the table who likes encumbrance rules and finds shopping one of the highlights of the campaign experience. No really, I really love that stuff!
Quote from: Planet Algol;563239I like that approach, and I like that table, but I personally find it too "prosaic" for the milieus I DM.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "prosaic". Care to elaborate? Also, what skill system do you use? (I see you've mentioned EPT but I'm not really familiar with the EPT system)
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;562894I love Non-Weapon Proficiencies. These were great for helping define character concepts (i.e. making annoying special snowflake characters :) ). The rules for raising them were Scroogy, and you didn't quite get enough without extras from a kit, and some of them were pretty stupid (Fire Building...) but overall I hugely preferred them, however tacked on, to the 3E system where you got a mixture of concept skills and adventuring skills strongly limited by class (i.e. get ready to be reamed hard for taking something that suits your character) or 4Es bland, purely adventuring-driven skill list.
Agreed 2e for ever ! :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;563275Agreed 2e for ever ! :)
Yup! :)