Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844294The way to differentiate PCs is roleplaying.

It's certainly one of the ways to do so.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202But what about the rest of you? How do you handle skill use in your games? What's your preference?

Mongoose Traveller.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202Do you think skill points are necessary?

Yes.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202Should only some classes be able to advance in them?

Screw classes.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202What about how to roll for them? Much as I love 5th edition, I kinda hate it's skill system, as it seems to encourage failing..

Good GMs just know how to handle skill checks in their games.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844294The way to differentiate PCs is roleplaying.

Wrong, that's merely one of the available ways. Something enhanced by actually having some meaningful, concrete elements...like skills to hang it off.

Personally, I like them better as "backgrounds", or "careers", which you can be assumed to be competent at:). Add your "Pirate Prince of the Black Coast" Background to Dexterity for swinging from the mast, add it to Intelligence for navigation, or add it to Charisma to intimidate people that might have heard of you, or add it to Wisdom to spot when people are trying to encircle you while pretending nothing's going on!

This is from Scarlet Heroes, BTW, the only thing I've added to it is that I allow people to change it when they level up, or even immediately, to reflect the fact that their "Noble Dafu" is now a "Noble Dafu With A Death Sentence" instead;)!

It really depends on the system. I do like how clean the LotFP skill system is. I think an OSR type game can benefit from skills so long as its clean and doesn't require a lot of book thumbing to use (like it did with AD&D 3rd Edition & Pathfinder). Assessing difficulty seems to be the messiest part to me.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;844301Mongoose Traveller.

Yes.

Screw classes.

Good GMs just know how to handle skill checks in their games.

Well, if Mongoose Traveller counts as OSR, than yes. It's one of my favourite systems as well:).
And it not having classes is a plus;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844294The way to differentiate PCs is roleplaying.

The challenge is to encourage *good* roleplaying rather than just goofy, uncoordinated thespianism. I think a little structure during character creation goes a long way to help with that.

Not that I as GM hate and discourage goofy thespianism. I find my players get tired of it around session 3 and stop doing it on their own.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;844301Screw classes.

Screw classless games.

Given my druthers I'd simply eschew classes and levels altogether; failing that I agree with Exploderwizard. Adventurers should generally be broadly competent with individual areas of focus in which they're a little better than others. To my mind there shouldn't be a dramatic difference in capability between, say, a 4th level fighter and a guard captain in a frontier town who's used to fighting off bandit raids, but the former might have studied and learned how to make effective pit traps while exploring a tomb at some point. Which could be where skills come in.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;844206I prefer skills to be completely absent in class based systems. They mix with classes and levels like oil & water.

That generally my take on it these days.

Quote from: AsenRG;844304Personally, I like them better as "backgrounds", or "careers", which you can be assumed to be competent at.

Though I like that approach as well.

I like skill-based games without classes/levels, BRP is my general go-to favorite, but D&D-ish OSR games appeal to me for their abstract simplicity... and skill rules/lists get in the way of that.

I like M20's way of handling them, which is basically narrowing them down to 4-5 very broad categories, with some classes being 10-15% better in their key areas. Everybody gets better as they level, and characters with high stats in certain area can apply their natural gifts to the checks. Simple, broad, effective.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202Lamentations of the Flame Princess gives everyone a 1 in 6 chance of succeeding at any skill...except for the specialist, the only class that gives skill points and can get better at them...

This is good because it makes clear that ANYONE can try any skill, like many have pointed out.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202Sine Nomine's games give skill points per level, and don't require rolling a d20....instead 2d6 plus the skill level to hit a TN...

This actually works BETTER than rolling a d20 in d20 games such as D&D, because combat is make of multiple rolls and skills usually with a single roll.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202Do you think skill points are necessary?

Not really, but I like them to customize chrachters. Id prefer a game with two or three flexible classes than one with dozens of strict classes.

But you can use abilities intead of skills, which also works well enough (as long as abilities evolve with levels).

Quote from: Orphan81;844202What about how to roll for them?

Like I said above, just dont use a d20. Take 10, use 1d6, 2d6 or 3d6, but not a d20, or results will be all over the place, specially when comparing different charachters. I wrote about this here.

My favorite (currently) is 3d6, although in very tempted to use 2d6 for everything - morale, reactions, skills, etc.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202Much as I love 5th edition, I kinda hate it's skill system, as it seems to encourage failing.

Same for me! Try using 3d6, and maybe lower the DCs a little (or use 4d6 intead!).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844270Levels indicate general competency.  If you're a 4th level fighter you're a Hero.  If a Hero can do it you can do it.  You might fail at swinging on the chandelier across the room or leaping off your horse onto the bad guy's horse, but you can certainly try and expect to do as well as a Hero.  (Rolling for failure is mostly to give me a chance for a comedic complication.)

Would you mind explaining how this system works? Say, if I was playing at your table, what should I roll when I tried swinging on the chandelier?

And how different would be this roll for a 1st, 4th and 10th level charachter?

I agree with the reasoning, Im just not sure how would this work.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;844343Would you mind explaining how this system works? Say, if I was playing at your table, what should I roll when I tried swinging on the chandelier?

And how different would be this roll for a 1st, 4th and 10th level charachter?

I agree with the reasoning, Im just not sure how would this work.

I've never played with Gronan, much to my chagrin, so this is pure speculation. Still, if I was running a game like this, I'd make it by changing the stakes of winning and failure.
A 1st level Veteran trying to jump on the enemy's horse during a chase jumps successfully behind him if he makes it. He just falls off if he fails the Dex check or whatever I'm using.
A 4th level Hero trying to jump on the same horse jumps and throws the guy out of the saddle if he makes the roll. If he fails the roll, he twists in the air and ends up in the saddle, but with his back to the enemy's back, so he has to improvise something now!

So with all that in mind, the best iteration of d&d is?

Either way, I heard similar about the Ranger. Or, a ranger is nothing but a 'fighter' who prefers to spend most of his time in the wilds.