Last month, I presented a draft of a proposed new character class for inclusion in Secrets of sha-Arthan, the tomb robber. A common question about the class, both in the comments and in separate emails, concerned my inclusion of skills among the tomb robber's abilities. Long-time readers will no doubt remember that, in the early days of this blog, I was a fairly strong opponent of the inclusion of a skill system into class-based RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons. I was likewise an opponent of the thief class introduced in Greyhawk, viewing it as a self-justifying class for which there is no real need.
In the early days of the Old School Renaissance, such positions were pretty common, maybe even normative. This was, after all, the beginning of the re-evaluation of the virtues of Original D&D (1974), when a lot of us who'd either never played OD&D (raises hand) or who had long ago abandoned it in favor of later elaborations upon it, embraced it with zeal. Remember, too, that the OSR grew up amid the wreckage of Third Edition, whose mechanical excesses served as negative examples of what could happen when D&D's design "strays" too far from the foundations laid down by Arneson and Gygax in 1974. And one of 3e innovations was the addition of a skill system separate from class abilities.
Looking back on it now, I can see that my desire to avoid what I perceived as the flaws of Third Edition often led me to rhetorical intemperance. That's certainly the case with regards to skills, though, in my defense, I started to moderate my stance relatively early. That moderation was the result of play, particularly in my Dwimmermount megadungeon campaign, where I came to recognize just why the thief class and skill systems had organically evolved. Even so, I retained a certain wariness about both, since I continued to feel, as I still do, that character skills should never become a crutch for lazy play, which is to say, interacting with the game world solely through the game mechanic of skill rolls.
That said, what ultimately changed my opinion for good was my House of Worms Empire of the Petal Throne campaign (take a drink). EPT, as many of you probably know, includes a skill system – the first, I believe, to appear in any roleplaying game. The skill system is certainly primitive by comparison to those in later RPGs, like Traveller or RuneQuest, of course. Indeed, the skill mechanic is vague and not very well integrated into EPT's overall play, but it's there. Consequently, when refereeing House of Worms, I made regular use of it.
What I discovered is that none of my earlier, hyperbolic concerns proved true at all. Skills never dominated play, nor did they encourage lazy play. The players rarely initiated skill rolls as a means to avoid having to think in-character or grapple with a problem presented to them. Instead, they might ask, "Does my character's Scholar skill give him any idea about the architectural style of this ruin?" or "Might my Jeweler-Goldsmith skill give me some idea of the value of this gemstone?" Sometimes, I'll call for an actual percentile roll to determine whether the skill grants the character the requested knowledge or not, but many times I'll simply make a judgment as to whether or not the skill is sufficiently expansive to grant it. Ultimately, the decision of how to adjudicate skills rested with me, the referee.
For me, that's the key. I dislike skill systems that demand a referee do something in response to a player-initiated successful roll. I much prefer those where skill use is a negotiation between player and referee and the final decision of whether a skill is relevant – or whether a roll is even needed – lies with the referee. Maybe that's common sense, but it's not the way I've often seen skill rolls used. Instead, they're more likely to be something a player employs to ensure a referee does (or does not) do a given thing within the context of the game. "I made a successful Stealth roll, so my character can sneak across the room without being seen by the guards" or "I got a success on my Persuasion roll and convince him not to report this to his superiors."
Skills – or perhaps competencies might be a better term – can be a good way for players and referees to cooperate in interacting with the setting and events within it. That's how I've been handling skills in House of Worms and I've taken that experience into Secrets of sha-Arthan as well – or at least I hope to do so.
Do you have a comprehensive list of the skills you are playing around with or is it more like what feels good at the time?
ReplyDeleteEPT has a list of skills, to which I've added a few over the years we've played.
DeleteMy problem is the binary nature of skills like Hide in Shadows. Once it is listed as a thief ability at a set percentage what happens when the fighter tries to hide?
ReplyDeleteAnswering this I think is the root of the 3e skill system. Taking non weapon profeciencies as presented in late 1e and 2e and then mixing in class skills from thief and ranger so everything was unified.
I mean someone else in the world can track besides Ranger. Sure you could make lots of new (NPC) classes but that a lot of work.
All that said I waffle alot on if I like skills or not and the best way to do them to balance them out to other features.
I think the thief class makes perfect sense given the Gray Mouser and other inspirations to D&D.
ReplyDeleteLikewise thief skills. To my mind it's no different than rolling to hit someone with a sword, a Fighter's skill that also improves with every level.
>Instead, they're more likely to be something a player employs to ensure a referee does (or does not) do a given thing within the context of the game. "I made a successful Stealth roll, so my character can sneak across the room without being seen by the guards" or "I got a success on my Persuasion roll and convince him not to report this to his superiors."
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate on what using these skills looks like at your table? What else would a successful Stealth roll mean other than they successfully sneak?
In that example, it's the player who dictates the outcome of the roll. What I prefer is that, before a roll is even made, the referee lays out the situation and sets the parameters for success/failure. In some cases, this might not even call for a roll but simply a solid plan of how the character intends to make his way across the room without being seen. My issue lies primarily with "who's in the driver's seat?" when it comes adjudicating the situation. Most skill systems are very player-oriented, with success indicating what must happen in the game rather than leaving room for referee interpretation.
DeleteIs that any clearer?
How is that different than a to-hit roll? If a player rolls a natural 20 to hit, is that also a player-oriented roll that indicates what *must* happen in the game?
DeletePut another way, if a baseball player hits a ball out of the park have they usurped the ump's ability to call the play?
:)
A fair point and, honestly, I don't have a good answer as to why they seem different to me. It's definitely something worth thinking about.
DeleteI think there is room for some defined procedures with skills. One key differentiator is how much flexibility the GM has in interpreting the skill and the result. A lot of the problem comes not so much in interpreting the roll, but in whether a roll is even allowed. Too many times, players leverage what's written about skills to say "you have to let me make this roll." That can actually happen with combat too.
DeleteI run games with the Axiom: Don't roll a die unless you are willing to accept the result. This assumes an order of operation that I think James would approve. To put it into the baseball analogy: the hitter may very well have hit the ball out of the park, but it doesn't count unless the umpire had already determined that both the pitcher and the batter were ready for the pitch to be made. The referee decides when it is appropriate for a die roll, not the player. This gives the referee the freedom to determine outcomes they are comfortable with — if I don't want to deal with the consequences of a failed roll or even a successful roll I can simply decide whether or not something is possible or not. Only when I am unsure of the outcome, want to be surprised, AND am comfortable with the outcome of a die roll do I allow a player to actually roll the die.
DeleteI agree that the DM says when to roll the dice.
DeleteAnd only the ump can say, "Play ball!"
I think a substantial difference between skill rolls and attack rolls is that the former run in one direction only. I admit that it would be funny if the final campaign boss were to successfully make a high-DC diplomacy skill check against the player characters, and convince them not to thwart his evil plans, but I don't imagine the players (or the DM) would find that a particularly satisfying conclusion.
DeleteI'm sympathetic to Mr. Pastor's comments later in this thread about skills enabling someone to play a character with very different capabilities to the player themselves (one could say the same about ability scores, of course). Still, I don't think they should excuse a player from engaging with the game on some narrative level, if only in very broad terms. No one expects the player of a bard to speak with grandiloquent mellifluence in character, but just saying, "I diplo the guard" really gives the game world short shrift.
I believe that MCDMs negotiation system does exactly that Mike - it's a tete a tete kind of thing. you can even do things like provoke a character you're negotiating with by playing on their phobias and philias if you have knowledge of them (or taking an adlibbed stab at them). i don't know if it's survived the initial design through their development process or not (it's ongoing)
DeleteThank you, sir, I'll keep an eye out for that. I know Mr. Colville is a fan of D&D 4e, and I wonder how much of the skill challenge mechanism from that game is reflected in his latest efforts. I've been following his new game design at some remove, as I've become less interested in super-powered heroic fantasy in recent years (a specific design goal of theirs, to my understanding). Still, his team is quite capable, and I admit to a fair bit of curiosity at what they come up with.
Deleteyes, i concur. the choices he made are great, and he seems to be knocking his design goals out of the park - but definitely not my flavor.
DeleteI never reached a "no skills at all" point with old school D&D (my OD&D play by post campaign allowed thieves) but I have thought long and hard about skills.
ReplyDeleteIn my latest iteration of adapting a college friend's game, Cold Iron, to my own uses, I have embraced a skill system. The game also has character classes, but the classes I use are Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Passive Magic (magic knowledge for non-casters), and Expertise. Every character has experience in Fighter, Expertise, and one of the three magic classes. Expertise provides skill points for non-combat skills.
But not having a skill is not always a blocker. It would only be a blocker for those skills that logically someone without any training at all really can't do. And in a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting, there aren't many things like that.
I guess the playstyle our D&D (5e) group has, is sort of a 'mixture' of what you described in the post ?
ReplyDeleteThe player's do ask the DM questions like "if I inspect this object, do I find anything special ?", but the DM almost always asks for a dice roll in these cases (probably a 'perception check' in this example). Of course, it's still the DM who then decides if the roll was 'high enough' or not (unless perhaps when the player rolled a 20, which everyone at the table - including the DM - almost always counts as 'high enough').
Yeah, we alternate between doing this and my asking for checks at appropriate moments when a player triggers something. More rarely one of my players might ask for a check if they have a hunch. "I'm going to roll arcana and see if I understand the ancient tome". I love it when they take initiative like this.
DeleteEnjoyed these posts and the comments. I for one am an acolyte of The Tao of D&D and his knowledge point system (https://dmsescritoire.blogspot.com/). If you don't have the skill you can't do it. Period. Much discretion left to the DM. And, as stated above - if you're not prepared to accept the result, don't roll the dice! Grandma can't throw a battle cruiser to the moon on a 20.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, the corollary to "if you're not prepared to accept the result, don't roll the dice" is that Grandma *CAN* throw a battle cruiser to the moon on a 20.
Deletelol.
What skills provide to me as a player is a chance for my character to do something that I cannot. I enjoy playing characters that have attributes or the appropriate imagination for a situation that I wouldn't have a clue how to handle. By providing me with a check I can be an observational detective when in real life I couldn't tell you what was in the room that I just left. And as others above have observed, a 'to hit' roll is exactly that. I'm sure most of us wouldn't have a fracking clue how to swing a sword effectively.
ReplyDeleteMan do I ever go back and forth on skills/skill-based games. I think my real stickler are personality type skills. Where the player can resort to a roll rather than interacting with the GM/NPC’s.
ReplyDelete“The guard is gruff and businesslike.” - “I’ll try to fast talk him, I roll a 42, I succeed!” Yawn…. Or worse, the GM describes a riddle or puzzle and the player rolls to solve it. Why even include it? Just jot down, “there’s a riddle carved into the wall, players must succeed in an Esoterica roll to solve….” Double Yawn!
Physical skills, or skills that describe a character’s knowledge in some area a player could have no way of knowing (like the history of some ancient empire, or a foreign language) make sense, but skills that reduce roleplaying to a die roll aren’t my bag.
Some folks will say that it’s unfair to shy, or “uncharismatic” players, but I guess them’s the breaks.
Since the early 2000s for my games of Old School D&D I've handled skills and the majority of non-combat activities without rolling, negotiating the results with the players.
ReplyDeleteSome years later I discovered that Chris McDowell had beautifully explained and systemized this kind of approach with his Into The Odd /Bastionland games (look out for his posts on the ICI doctrine and the general approach to character actions).
As for other games, I have no problems at all with using skill systems, even extensive ones (though I prefer shorter lists and simpler mechanics)., but with D&D it feels "off".
Probably because my first DM never used ability checks.
My own take, as an OD&D referee is that skills are useful for things that one player "skill" and referee knowledge can't really sort out, or which sorting out would require a significant break in the game for the player using the skill to play some kind of mini-game. Like many other things that gamify elements of play skills are largely a time saver at the table.
ReplyDeleteLike you I think referees should call for rolls as needed and I personally tend to give out information or automatic successes where a skilled PC undertakes something without time pressure or which is fairly easy. Save the rolls for the when luck and actual character skill takes over. In a way it's like combat. If the players can figure out ways to swing things in their favor with the elements of the game world - then we might not need the dice. If they can't, the dice decide.
@Gus L -Nobody Said It Better.
DeleteI may be channeling Cypher Systems and I may have this wrong - if you have proficiency in something, you don't need to roll, unless it's difficult. If you aren't, you roll. If there is an (N)PC opposing you, and they aren't proficient, they roll. If you both are either one, you both roll. Or something like that.