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.