Why 6E Should Eliminate Skills (Ep. 135)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ค. 2020
- Some players think more defined skills would be a welcome addition to the 6th Edition. Professor Dungeonmaster takes a contrarian point of view and explains why it would be wiser to ditch skills altogether.
Patreon: / dungeoncraftyoutube
Dungeoncraft Facebook : / 1620296361377654
Josh Kaufman TED Talk: • The first 20 hours -- ...
Music:
"Fury of the Dragon's Breath" by Peter Crowley
Bandcamp : petercrowley.bandcamp.com/
By Kevin Macleod: "Thatched Cottages," et al. All tracks are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...) - เกม
This is one of your rare videos with which I disagree. No - rolling pins DO work for texturing XPS foam (I have used them a lot for this). No - players should use the first person when describing what their characters do. No - skills enable players to customise their characters usefully - creating distinctions between characters and requiring cooperation and delegation, which encourages inter-PC interaction.
I agree that long descriptions of skills are unhelpful, and skill numbers should be kept down. Your comment about the 20-hours thing is open to abuse. Players would claim that their characters are all studying a new skill between adventures every twenty hours, and thus quickly get no penalties in any task. There should be a cost to this first-level of getting a skill, but the penalty for having NO skill could be harsh. Never played the uke? Minus ten penalty. Played it for twenty hours and spent a skill point? No penalty. Played it a lot for years and spent two skill points? +1!
Haven't played the uke for ages .. you've lost the skill.
@@EricScheid Na - playing the uke is like falling off a bicycle - you never forget how.
As someone else in the comments has said, skills are very useful when done in a classless system, which I prefer, to have more freedom in customizing a character and what you described. However, DnD 6th edition will most probably heavily rely on classes, making skills a little finnicky.
@@DaBezzzz
Skills are still useful in a class system, as they allow for flexibility. Let's say your character is a Fighter, but your narrative for them is they're a noble. Eight child in the pack, so expectations aren't high and you've done your knightly duty. You're given a grace period to either make a name for yourself stretching your legs and doing whatever the heck you want or it's back in the army so as not to sully the family name. As a noble, you're at least a little educated. History is a given, but you get to pick whose. What else were you taught? The possibilities are numerous. You're probably more persuasive, too. That's where some of those skill point can go. One the other hand, your average commoner who takes up the Fighter class probably picked up a little more sleight of hand or perhaps you're more athletic due to heavy farm work.
Skills can add to the narrative quite easily.
I'm with you Lindybeige. I'm okay with skills but I can't stand feats. In fact I don't allow feats in mt 5E games. Hackmaster 4E had a great skill system. Very specific skills. It used a percentage system and it took leveling up and critical successes to improve skills.
For me personally, the most disappointing thing about the 5e skills is the small modifiers. I've had many games where my lifelong wizard knows less about arcana than the barbarian that grew up in the wilderness and barely knows how to write, just because all campaign I roll a 5 and add 6 and he rolls a 15 and subtracts 1.
Yes. People who shy away from modifiers don't understand what they really are - which is "the ability to make your decisions matter". If I suck at sneaking, but I as a player, think of taking off my shoes, waiting until it is night, wait until a wagon is passing by, tell a friend to cause a distraction, etc. These are CREATIVE IDEAS that should give me a very significant way to account for my weaknesses (and a significant way to penalize POOR decisions). That makes them worth doing simple math for.
Well yeah but why let the barbarian roll at all?
With my friends we ruled that knowledge skills have to be rolled with proficiency.
Unless the knowledge check is really easy.
Even then if a knowledge check is so easy, then why roll? Just give the information
given trying to teach a barrbarian basic math (let alone arcane knowlege) is like trying to teach Hulk that smashing is bad and not fun.
given trying to teach a barrbarian basic math (let alone arcane knowlege) is like trying to teach Hulk that smashing is bad and not fun.
what you truly wish for my friend is: gurps
I love DCC RPG approach:
- difficulty is 1 to 20
- if you are proficient i.e. makes sense from class perspective or is related to your previous occupation (bacground) you roll d20
- if you are not proficient you roll d10
- roll modifiers range from -3 to +3 depending on your stat
Numenera is not a skill-less game. It just only requires you to write down the skills which you actually have bonuses or penalties to.
Korica You are, of course, correct. If I had the budget to hire an editor, you’d be hired!
What I don't like when systems are too simplified is that every character ends up being mechanically the same. Once you played a rogue, you played them all. They are all equally good at sneaking, equally good at pickpocketing, equally good at picking lock etc.
You can always get rid of more and more rules to simplify the system and make the game go faster, but at some points, you don't have a game anymore; it is just improv theatre with an occasional roll of dice.
Improv with dice rolling is, like, my ideal game.
This is a good argument. I'm not even sure I prefer D&D 5th's lack of skill-points to the earlier editions because of that reason.
I agree. The lack of a solid skill system is one of the reasons why I don't like 5e (which is still, objectively, a very good system overall)
Agreed. Might as well play a video game at that point.
and even then, you need the bonuses to be significant in order to make a noticeable difference in both the impact the character has on situations, and the types of decisions you make for the character.
Skills are really just a way of customizing your character's Wheelhouse. Not all fighters will have the exact same Wheelhouse, for example. A border guard might have Survival and Animal handling, while a Gate Guard would have Investigation due to checking travelers for contraband, while the guards at the palace would have picked up Diplomacy, but may have neglected their Athletics.
I feel skills aren't really there to add a sense of realism, but rather are there to let players make a character that feels mechanically "theirs." While you could try and handle this through the GM defined "Class Wheelhouse" approach, the difficulty comes from maintaining a sense of fairness when it comes to things that might not be in the standard class Wheelhouse. Example, Jennifer makes a spy while Sara makes a smuggler. Clearly Jennifer's rogue should be better at Diplomacy than Sara's, but what does she give up from her Wheelhouse to get that advantage? Stealth? Thievery? What if Jennifer has a different idea of what to give up than the GM? Skills are just a way of getting all that nicely wrapped up ahead of time.
@solomani interesting. So under your rules non-proficient skills are just a flat d20 roll? No ability and no proficiency bonus?
@@michaelbrown1236 AD&D didn't have skills, true, except for Thieves with their weird percentage score skills. You could just run with Abilities, but that just forces characters to play the tropes of their class and makes for flat characters (not that that's necessarily bad, it just get boring if you can't make a scholarly fighter, etc. without being bad at your main job). Prof DM suggests the "Wheelhouse" idea as a fix for this. I'm just pointing out that the "Wheelhouse" idea is just Skills where the DM picks the skills instead of the player. This doesn't seem like it makes the game more fun to me.
@@michaelbrown1236 2e had proficiencies
Players pick the flavor of the class and can pick backgrounds. Players also get to justify a skill being in their wheelhouse.
Most DM’s say yes most of the time to those things. Unless you’re a player who routinely abuse things and stretch options and meanings and just in general are difficult. Most players aren’t.
@jeremymullens7167 So, instead of writing up a skill list ahead of time, players can ad Hoc say "I'm good at this skill" when they need it? Should the list of things a PC is good at be written down anywhere? Is there a limit to how many things you can be good at, or is it just "whatever the DM let's you get away with?"
It seems like we're just coming at skills from two different directions here, except picking the skills at character creation spares you the negotiation during session.
With each video you publish the more apparent it is that you run the kind of game I want to play in/run. Keep up the good work, Prof.
Dear Professor DM,
I am writing to you as a fan of your work. I would like to request you record and maybe even dub over commentary one of your home games, like a sports cast explaining while you do it. A "behind the screen" look at exactly how your table works, how rolls are rolled, how much health things have, the tension you try to build and the speed at which it all happens.
The way you propose these changes and explain in detail how they work are sublime; a demonstration of yourself in action would be the cherry on top.
Speaking for myself, I need to see it to understand it. Your video's are the best, but difficult for me to absorb and implement or try.
Thank you for your time and your work in making these videos, always an absolute pleasure when one comes up recommended that I haven't seen.
All the best,
Squire OA
P.S. You've got this wee cheeky grin when you propose radical changes, almost as if prescient of the hate and disagreement inevitably on the way to your inbox. Love ittttttt, keep it up doc!
I love how using Backgrounds as a touchstone for Skill Checks makes that initial choice so much more relevant! Thanks PDM!
But that's already in the game. The tool kits re great for this and backgrounds give specific skills in them.
Also everything in this is already a variant in the DMG. Which he either didn't know about or wanted to 'forget' from putting in so it sounds more like his idea.
13th Age has a really cool system where the background you make up then gets skill points allocated to it which is what you would add for relevant checks. Ex: Say i write down sailor and put +3 points into it, any time i have to roll a skill check that might be associated with the experiences of a sailor you would just add +3 to your roll. Simple and Intuitive if you ask me.
13th age is my game of choice.
I also really like the sentient magic items.
Same, attributes + level works fine, add background if applicable...done
I love 13th Age - Way better than anything WotC has put out
Prof. DM one day: Why you should eliminate rules from your TTRPG.
LOL. I've played some great sessions with no rules or dice. But I still like having rules and skills, just not the 10,000 rules that D&D has.
Lol. Yeah, but he just likes realistic simplicity, if that makes sense. Skills may not be needed for a simple game.
@@starseed96
That just sounds like storyboarding.
What were the game elements/mechanics?
@@starseed96 If you’re playing without rules or dice, you’re just doing improv.
Ezd6 in a nutshell
Players really need to watch the Secrets of Blackmoor doc & really digest the fact that the players really didn’t understand the system that Arneson was using. They didn’t need to. They had a great, consistent DM, that they trusted & that allowed them to be creative.
I generally like skills in RPGs without classes. In those cases, they are what defines the character in lieu of a Class, and allows the wider ranging customization inherent in those systems.
Those in class-based systems such as D&D, however should just be cut down to a 'profession' that the GM can interpret to provide a bonus based on whether it is relevant to the action. At most. Character Class already narrows things down enough.
I agree 100%! In games like Aces & Eights there are no classes so your skills and talents (feats in 5e) are what define your character. I do love the idea of a skilless system for a level based game.
I agree. It is skills that define a character and make more sense than classes per se. Imposing class is like saying that one can be an engineer but if so, can't play tennis. It is also the palette of skills that paints one character as different than another. Good comment!
Liked StarWars D6s system and world of darkness, still play these with my players. D&D skills kinda suck, every class should get the same amount and no class limits.
Skills or classes, but not both.
13th Age did this and I know a lot of gamers who do not like it because it is too much discussion on when the profession brings a bonus. I think it is good that D&D5 does not the same so that there is an alternative.
The problem with tying skills directly your profession is that in both games and in real life people have skills that they delve into as hobbies or skills based on previous life experience. This system doesn't give any room for that. who's to say my mage doesn't know how to pick pockets? Why isn't that an option for me to build my character The way I want?
So have those things emerge during play, say allow characters to come up with one minor thingy each session and one major thingy each level to add to their wheelhouse? Let them sort of retcon it in...
For that kind of versatility you need GURPS.
No such things as character classes.
You just point buy the skills you think fit the character.
You are not wrong... But he is talking about competence. A wizard is an expert at reading and analysis, but he can still be competent at picking locks. It just he won't be spending as much time practicing the delicate movement of lock picking when he has to memorize his spells before sleeping.
The reverse is true for rouges. He can pick locks, sneak and set traps. But can also be a competent spontaneous caster because he is able to mimic the sounds and movements required for some of the lower level spells without the need to study complex spellbooks.
My buddy is running a campaign and during character creation he let us take one free non-combat and non-Lucky feat for flavor related to background. It gives you options for fun feats that's aren't worth an ASI, for instance maybe a Dragonborn Merchant may start with Linguist to represent his experience speaking to and trading with races and getting Dwarvish, Gnomish and Elvish as they are the most commonly spoken, or even someone as simple as a Fighter who takes Chef to provide some minor utility but a large array of RP possibilities. And since it's a free feat not focused on min maxing I don't even worry about taking something optimal.
We still need “use rope” skill though .... don’t take that away from us!! 😱
That's the most important skill in " Shades of Grey RPG"
Anyone who has done any tree cutting work would know exactly how important it is. Lol.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 lol
This is basically how we played D&D back in the day. Player: "I climb out on the branch. Do I need to roll anything?" DM: " Nah, you're a wood elf -- you just do it. "
one of the most important elements of a good DM: ability to quickly apply common sense before consulting rules and stats etc
When to require a skill roll and when to let the player frame the action. Too many DM's and players want to shortcut games by skill rolls to check everything.
this is how I run my games as well. The modern tendency is to ask for rolls no matter what and I don't know why
Another great Video Prof! i am literally getting tired of TH-cam. I didn't think that was possible. But i always get excited when i see a new Dungeon Craft vid. If i can humbly make one tiny suggestion, it's your use of the term "logical sense." I feel that more accurately and more to the spirit of this video, the term "dramatic sense" conveys what I understood to be your meaning in context. After all, we aren't relying so much on logical acumen as on a sense of drama when we decide that the Ork warrior with a background in Whaling might be competent at the helm. Thanks again for all the great content. It always shapes the way i think about my own game. And if you can find the time, let me know if you like my suggestion.
Don't mind me, I'm just feeding the algorithm :-D
Thank you. +100xp
Next video: How to make The Algorithm a compelling warlock patron. :)
You are a gentleman and a scholar.
@@oldschoolplayer1632 Thanks for your support!
100 xp?! Wont that level him up like 10 times?! Guess you don't want this to be a long game 🤣🤣🤣 forgive my terrible PDM reference humor
Where can we buy Eldritch? It seems really interesting and something I'd like to buy for my friends.
Patreon. Plus I give you a free scenario.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Became a patreon right after this video and got it! Thanks for the reply!
@@saytobelwyyn Many thanks. Check. out Dungeonhack but be aware it will always be changing.
The rules you wish to see are there in DMG for 5e.
There's an option that you get rid of skills and simply add proficiency bonus if the task performed matches your background.
No, they are not there.
What he wants is for those alternative rules to be the standard, and for skills to be banished from the game.
That is not the same as including a no-skill system as optional in the DMG.
@@brabra2725 It is a bit selfish when you put it that way.
having a no-skill option in a skill based game is a lot easier than the other way around.
So what about the people that want to use skills?
@@arthurgraton7165 They play GURPS
@@arthurgraton7165
1) If you put it that way, every game it's selfish. What about people that don't want levels but just skills? What about people that don't want hit points? What about people that want to play lawyers in a medieval world? Should D&D include optional rules for all of them as well? No, of course. First, because there's not enough room. But most importantly, because, even if there were enough room, it would not only be stupid, but also harmful to the game experience to include all these rules. Why? Because when you design a game you must focus on a certain game experience and exclude the rest. It's like writing a book: what you cut is often more important than what you include in the book. And please, don't tell me that to include an option for playing without levels is not d&d but skills are D&D. General-purpose skills were not a thing in D&D until 3e. D&D 1e was published in 1974. D&D 3e was published in 2000. So, no-skill D&D was around for 26 years, and skill-based D&D for 20 years. So, if anything, playing without skills is more core to the D&D experience than playing with skills.
2) To include the option for playing without skills is not the same as making the no-skill system the standard. If you made the rules for playing without skills as optional, most GMs wouldn't allow them as they would rather stick to the standard game. So, players who love not having skills would be punished for this design decision.
@@brabra2725 "What he wants is for those alternative rules to be the standard, and for skills to be banished from the game."
Then he should stop whining about the rules not being exactly how he wants at his table.
I like his vids on creating terrain and such, but his ones on game mechanics tend to be really bad hot takes.
Hello there, first off, sorry for the long comment. So, I have some 15+ years of music background and let me shine a light a bit on that TED Talk. From my personal experiences, 20 hours is not enough, it is just enough to get you started, and that is all. And even still, you will need to keep practicing while you have the momentum, otherwise, you will forget everything in a matter of days.
I have personally seen people trying to learn how to sing for weeks and failed hard, even with good teachers. I have seen drummers who were always out of tempo, no matter the hours/weeks/months/years of practice. Guitarists whose strumming was weak, pianists who missed their keys, etc. I am going to repeat myself here, 20 hours might be enough to get you in a mindset, not to get you decent.
To make the writing analogy here; it is like saying, I have learned the alphabet, now I am a decent writer. As for the ukelele guy, he just learned the basic chord progression and applied it to pop songs, which honestly says more about the variety/complexity of pop music than his skill. So his analogy is faulty from the get-go. But it depends on what his goal was. I would still not say that he learned to play the ukelele, he learned 4 chords on the ukelele, and that's it.
Now, how does this apply to the game? Would I allow my players to practice something 20 hours between adventuring and be good at it enough that the difference is only one digit? Absolutely not! As a player, I would instead embrace the unskilled aspect and play around it. For example, "Do you see anything strange in this book, oh fellow adventurer?", to which the acolyte replied, "It is heresy! I must burn this book. As you know, true faith forbids delving into heretical lore." So, the acolyte here is untrained in arcana, and this is how it is explained in the example. Now, if the acolyte was sneaking into the temple's basement, and secretly read a heretical scroll for 20 hours, he would say something like "This heretical script appears to be made for summoning purposes, regardless, it is a heresy... and yadda yadda yadda." *Your character sheet is a pool of RP resources, and your die roll is a jump into that pool.* This is very situational, and greatly depends on the style of play and the GM's input and style of running, but still, it is something that should be considered.
Take care, everyone!
PS I am not trying to bash the ukelele guy. He spent time, learned a new thing, and added some extra seasoning to his life. Kudos for that! But I still think that his philosophy might be a bit misleading.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Ukulele guy's theory is you need 20 hours to say "I can do this at a very basic level." I wouldn't allow players to learn how to read magic after 20 hours either. That's what I meant by "prerequisite skills"re: spell casting. I REALLY appreciate your reply, though. Read every word. Cheers!
Agree totally. I used to love playing Rolemaster for the ‘death’ charts, but we basically ditched most of the skills. Even in our AD&D games, we used to just get the players to roll under one of their six main stats with a minus if the act was more difficult. The player could reduce the difficulty by coming up with a ‘cunning plan’.
Relying on class and background occupation makes sense with D&D. Your class/background says a lot about the characters and can easily serve as a guide for what they are proficient in without relying on the minutiae of individual skills. DCC uses this simplified approach and it keeps the game running smoothly. Classless games (Savage Worlds, GURPS, FATE, etc) is another story as it relies heavily on skills to define what the character can do. If D&D 6e eliminated skills or made them optional, I would be perfectly fine with it.
I love 13th ages "skill" system. It's a background system, you get a few background valued 1-5. A background can be anything like your past professions or interests, a descriptor of your character at an essential level, or even a belief. If you want to do something, you apply any background that makes sense to the task. So if you have a background of Fisherman, you could reasonably apply that to piloting a boat (but probably not a ship), or even navigating waterways, or identifying flora and fauna on rivers.
You can actually have more than 5 points in a skill, just not during character creation.
@@gghost166 Well I don't want to restate the entire rule, just giving the broad strokes.
Sadly 13th age has a really convoluted feat and power system, that totally turned me off
Sorry to break your bubble, that is not 13th age skill system, that is Risus skill system that 13th copypasted.
A game without skills is also newbie friendly. The ability for a player to say, "I want to do this," and for them to freely roll without looking anything up is invaluable. It sparks more creative responses, speeds up the game, and loads more fun IMO.
A "no skill option" is already present in the 5e DM's guide. Individual DM's have that option. I, personally, love skill based games, especially for "sandbox style" games. I, personally, loved Alternity because skill specializations were highly defining. Runequest and CoC handle skills fairly well too.
Very helpful, PDM! You nailed it, and the Black Hack book's descriptive range for rogues is a good model for handling skills. I like how you use the 10k hour standard for achieving expertise as an example, but then turn to the 20 hour idea for gaining some competence. Your explanation of die rolls and how they work is esp. appreciated!
To say Numenera is skillless is a misrepresentation. It has skills, it just doesn’t have a specified list. You can take any skill you want for your character and they can be as broad or narrow in application as the player wants. That is not the same thing as having no skills.
Sounds like it might as well be.
Doing it that way means players can just make up whatever they want and it's like, what's the POINT of anyone pretending they have distinct characters? If one player decides they want the electrical engineering skill they would immediately get invalidated by the other player who decides they want the "engineering" skill that they just broadly define as all types of engineering.
MisterZimbabwe Because of how skills are applied in the game, the GM could say that electrical engineering applied but general engineering does not. There is still a lot of flexibility in the GM’s ability to apply common sense/stricter definitions. When I say broad or narrow, you could say have driving, but have specialties in sport bikes.
But the point was that it still has skills.
Came here just to write this comment. It's far from skilless
Came here to say this. Skills ease a task by one stage, which is effectively a +3 bonus to a d20 roll.
Monte Cook's Cypher System, which powers the Numenera game, is one of the best rulesets out there. I've been in a few campaigns with that system and it's flat out awesome. Thanks PDM for mentioning it!
Castles and Crusades does this. The skill system is strongly based on the idea of “would a member of this class know how to do that?” Difficult for people who are used to defined skills, but once you understand the intent, it beats the heck out of hard, defined skill lists. It encourages role playing instead of roll playing
Hi Mr. DungeonMaster! I love the sound of these low-crunch systems. I’m looking to run a new gothic horror medieval fantasy game soon and was wondering which of these systems you mentioned may be best for this type of game? I’ve always liked horror and sanity systems, but I don’t want to build it myself, and typically when I see these they’re in systems for more complex than I want to deal with. Any pocket systems that cover this well? Thanks!
I was hoping for an episode on this. Thanks PDM.
I was already anticipating Rolemaster where skills go wild!
I will offer my opinion which is simply,
"We don't need no stinkin' skills. We got six attribute scores, roll under one of 'em and move on."
Why no simplify even further and just have two attribute scores, one physical and one intellectual? Then you wouldn't even need to wonder if jumping should be done with dex or strength, or if appraisal should be done with wisdom or intelligence.
@@MrMaxBoivin Depending on the specific goals, you can do a 2 stat, single stat, or even no stat system.
Good comments all around. If simplification is the goal, just assign a skill level - 3, let's say- and roll a d6. The problem is weighing flavor against simplicity. I actually liked Rolemaster for certain stories, and other more unstructured systems for different ones. Make it simple and move on? Toss out rolls entiry and simply use a 'yes...and' mechanic. The more you pare a character down for sake of simplicity, the less character is there (realizing that in some cases, that's what you want).
@@JMtheGM I totally agree and still play Rolemaster Classic (and other crunchy rpgs). It is a slower paced game and great system for a certain style of play. However, if the goal is "fast, fun and furious" play, I think fewer dice rolls and look-ups is the way to go. It all depends upon what you are going for in your rpg system. There is probably no one size fits all when it comes to system.
@@freddaniel5099 Rolemaster crit tables. Hit or fail, they're both good.
I had a lot of fun with Dogs in the Vineyard. The stats were all descriptions and you sorta bargain with the GM for when they are applicable. Made a really fun experience.
I like the idea where a character has a few descriptors based on their race/class background like “born in the saddle,” where someone with that tag might not need to make a check to determine the quality of a horse or do complicated maneuvers, while someone without it has to make a check. The nomadic horse lord might have to make a check to make his steed leap a 20ft ravine and then charge at Hippothrax, demon lord of spooking horses, maybe.
Totally agree: D&D’s strength/uniqueness was in that originally it didn’t really have a skill system. And there are games like Pathfinder and RoleMaster that already deliver that kind of experience. I’d go back to a more versatile and quicker system, with skills, feats, archetypes and complex abilities as bolt-on options.
I kind of have to both agree and disagree. Specific agreements arise when approaching from the viewpoints of simplicity and immersion. While I don't particularly care for the system, PbtA and it's many derrivatives have proven that at the end of the day, all you really need are the dice and a DM to have a system. In many more narratively focused systems, skills can be a hinderance and an experienced DM can do without them for the most part. It's simple for me to adjust difficulty based on a character's background or the current situation rather than giving advantage, disadvantage, or some other such factors.
However I don't agree when it comes to saying skills should be stripped from dnd. Mostly due to the nature of the experience attempting to be created by said system and their appeal to people just getting into the hobby. Unfortunately the name "D&D" is defining for the hobby which has been explored and accepted by your own admission. The regular replacement of the term "tabletop RPG" with "DND" in your own lexicon as well as the mass acceptance of such things shows this. Said omnipresence within the TTRPG hobby means that dnd is likely going to be the first system for many, and the simplistic skill system as well as many other largely vestigial systems can act as a pillar upon which GMs and players alike can branch off from as they grow into their own. Not many new GMs understand how to adjust difficulty fluidly depending on a character's information or situation when they're running their first to third campain. Going by the suggestions for difficulty numbers found in the DMG, providing advantage/disadvantage, and letting skills express a character's background in certain topics is how I got comfortable and how I'm sure many other GMs found themselves comfortable enough to agree with you.
This is also discounting the idea of skill-based systems such as cyberpunk2020, traveller, Call of cthulhu, mothership, etc. Which revolve entirely around their skill systems rather than the traditional level and class systems. Said skill-based systems use skills as a means to express said professions and, while less open ended, do fufill those desires for players to represent their characters in a more mechanical sense.
Thanks for taking the time comment!
I agree. I had better sense of who my GURPs character was on finishing the character sheet, more than any D&D character.
This is an excellent topic. Like you, Professor, I'm an old man of the D&D world. I remember editions that were far more simple, with NO skills or proficiencies. On the other hand, I remember game editions and other game systems that were FAR too detailed in their ridiculous amount of complex skills, sub-skills, etc.
I feel like people who started out in 3rd / 3.5 / or Pathfinder tend to prefer having a TON of skills, classes, sub-classes, archetypes, etc. While it's cool to have all these neat options, they definitely create more complexity.
After 40+ years of gaming, I have found that less complexity / rules light makes for a better game with a faster pace, and more opportunity for players to use their own creativity versus relying on a list of abilities/skills/etc. on their character sheet.
Again, good topic, and great exploration.
You also neglected to mention the Palladium game system and Shadowrun that both employ a plethora of different skills and sub-sets to put your "ability" into. Good to see you here Mr. Bill Allan!
I gotta say, I like the tunnels and trolls way of doing skills, where you as a player decide your own skill from whole cloth and decide which attribute it is related to.
I agree with streamlining and minimizing skills or eliminating skills. I recommend looking up Cogent Roleplay (still in alpha, free to dl) for an example of a system combines an abilities system and skills system well. It is a d6 system created by Shad from Shadiversity and his brother Jazza from DrawwithJazza. There's three ability scores: Strength, Intelligence, Reflexes. Each ability score has 4 associated skills which are pretty broad. You can only have up to a +2 in any one ability and up to a +2 in one skill but you can combine one ability with up to one skill for a single roll. The is how the game encourages you to specialize to earn a +3 or +4 at something.
Skills sound like real life, there are specialists that can drill down farther and farther. This doesn't mean I like it, but it does fill out role playing books that people buy and eat up. I think you'll have people that go both ways, some people love fleshing out the uniqueness of their character, some just want to play the adventure and logically wing it while you play. Oh by the way, my Professor Dungeonmaster skill is 3.
I thought I was so original when I though of the 'your previous job allows you to argue you should be better at certain tasks'. I'll just take it as a vote of confidence that so many system designers think it works XD
The reason I like the 3.5/Pathfinder skill system is that it gives me a way to build nuance into my character. If my character is a ranger who used to be a soldier, I want to reflect that in the skills my character has. It doesn't help that I can take a "soldiering" background, I want to allocate my points to reflect precisely what skills my character acquired.
BUT having taught this system to others and been a game master to new players, new players are overwhelmed by the amount of skill points they have to allocate and get frustrated or bogged down very easily. So I do understand that that system only has appeal to a person willing to think through and allocate all those points individually.
I also love Numenera where skills are very vague and general and there is no set list, you can come up with any skill you like. The GM then allows you to apply or not apply it to certain circumstances.
This is another great episode, I'm glad I found it, even though I'm a year late to it. I'm a big fan of the way that MIMgames' "The Window" system has players describe their characters skills that they feel are significant to the characters. As the precepts of the game state, "Everything about a Window character is
described with adjectives rather than numbers."
I think that 5E strikes a good middle ground between granularity and playability.
I agree with you, too many skills definitly are not a good idea. I play a German TTRPG, The Dark Eye, regularly, and I have to say, simulation is nice and all, but it does become extremely unwieldy to use. But I also think that skills are wonderful because they make your character feel more unique, and if I play a ttrpg that doesn't have a good skill system I always feel like something is lacking (i.e. there are not enough skills, or the wrong ones)
I concur completely.
Heresy! Calumny! Perfidy! How can we possibly.....oh, actually, this system makes a lot of sense! Good on you!
These are my favorite videos of yours where you dissect different aspects of the game and discuss possible new ways of improving the game and listing resources that helped shape these ideas. You certainly have given me many ideas on my own personal rule set I use to run my games for my kids. The rules I use now have changed a lot over the last year plus and the game runs so much better as a result of these improvements. Thanks again for these videos. I hope you have a lot more like this in the future.
Absolutely love it. I have been looking for a way to get rid of ability scores and skill modifiers and profession is a perfect and wonderful solution.
I've always liked the skill system from the 1st ed DMG. I also think setting players level of understanding helps. Like are you a character from Lloyd Alexander chronicles with the assistant pig keeper or is the game set in a Conan type word or He Man. Let them know the lay of the land. If a physical hero my jumps over the pit yeah I let that happen but Barbarian at a noble's table is asking for failure.
Another well thought out session sir, cookie for the analytics engine
I always really liked something that Shadowrun did, which is that they had the skills that mattered in terms of the game, and you spent you skill points on them, but then you also just had a set of knowledges and interests which did not have specific game mechanics, but reflected the breadth and depth of knowledge and skill that modern people acquire.
As I agree 100% I shall leave a comment:
This video is good. I agree 100%. Please continue your uncanny streak of videos that I can agree with. Thank you.
We'll see if we can keep it going. Next week is zoned combat.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 yes! I've been implementing UDT ideas in Roll20 for combat, but I now have some questions. Like how do you treat spells that affect an area, or events happening outside the central zone
Dungeon Craft : Looking forward to it as always!
I'm going to evoke Scotty from Star Trek III " The more you overthink the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain."
I love all your videos but this is especially one of my favorites. In modifying 5e for my little kids and my students who are learning English, this was one of your videos that really helped me streamline the rule set. If a character doesn’t have a skill, why is it on their character sheet? Why can’t they have a skill that’s not on the prescribed list? Great stuff!
I most definitely agree with you here Professor. I recently started running a FTD adventure where skills essentially are your main ability statistics, which keeps it simple. I think a lot of stuff with skills boils down to players codifying stuff to "keep the DM honest". If all DM's played by the rule that "you win when the players are having fun", and player knew their DM did this, I think fewer people would be asking for more skill definitions.
THIS!
Having ran Numenera I can say I love the system. I wish 6th edition would take some pointers from it, because it really is peerless in the gaming world right now.
I agree. They specifically got rid of so many skills when compared with 3.5rd. putting more in doesn't solve the problem.
Love it, hope a lot of folks see this video!
I like this approach. Assume skills exist based on occupation/experience. You get the same result as picking multiple skills, in half the time.
I've seen that in a few other RPGs. Latest one I've read being 'Barbarians Of Lemuria'. Very efficient.
NefariousKoel yeah it’s my favourite game atm
If "Skills" don't work, get rid of them.
As a DM, I have always used HOUSE RULES - that all the Players know about and agree to - to leap over all the traps and tricks and crap that overly complex rules create.
Another great video.
I was going through the Dungeoncraft playlist looking for an older episode to rewatch; did you know you’ve got a Scott Adams video in there, Dan?
No. Where?
Found it and removed it. Very weird. Thank you. Let me know if you find anything else off topic.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 No problem. YT can be glitchy at times. :)
Where can we find a copy of Eldritch? Sounds very interesting.
Patreon.
I think 6th edition will have more rules for players to try to argue with the DM about.
seriously, this is why I hate DMing 5th ed. My players always bring up stupid shit and when I say that my word trumps the book, they get pissy. When I run stuff like Shadow of the Demon Lord, I get no such complaints about rules. Rules are bad imo, and the less of them the better
I'd hope there would be less to argue about, they only need to tighten up the rule set they have right now and get rid of some of the useless junk sentences in rules, action surge is a good example "on your turn you can take one additional action" that's all they needed to write and then they slap on "onto of your regular action and a possible bonus action" that second sentence is entirely unnecessary and confusing.
@@marxistcapitalist9088 If you tell them you are going to play 5e and they sit down to find out it's been modified in ways that they care a lot about, you have to expect they will be disappointed at least, if not down right angry. You might try, managing your players expectations by reading the rules, and then writing down and handing out what you will change for your game. Then everyone knows what they are signing up for, instead of the bait and switch you describe above. I do this for any game or system I run and i never have any angry players as a result.
@@marxistcapitalist9088 : Yeah exactly. I've found that the more rules-lite the game, the far fewer rules arguments you have. I haven't been in a single game of D&D or Pathfinder that didn't end up being a bunch of rules arguments. Play a rules lite game like Dungeon World or Fate, and all those arguments magically disappear. Game systems are much better when they're designed to integrate GM judgment calls as opposed to having hard coded mechanics that ask you to ignore logic and narrative.
Skills are there to round out and differentiate your character from other characters. The number and type of skills might be up for debate but getting rid of skills doesn't allow for uniqueness that blends character building ,the characters imagination and how they interact with other characters both PC and NPC and the DM . Also the DM can get creative. A fighter taking professional skill soldier might be able to make a survival skills check without the survival skills but at a higher difficulty because he did not put skill points into survival. Conversely if a fighter has both professional skill soldier and survival you might have a skill synergy to get bonuses to a roll or even have the DM fudge a die role in favor of a player character because it simply makes sense .
You can also have soceror have have no ranks in fighter at all but have ranks in professional skill soldier because he was battle field magic user and knows a little bit where and when to cast his spells to disrupt a phalanx formation .
Going back to a fighter special forces in real life often have a combat skill plus non-combat skills that allow for recruitment of local soldiers . A real life example would be a Green beret . A Green beret knows historically at least one additional language and has been given a rudimentary training on how to educate local soldiers . To represent that in a D&D game your fighter might actually have language skill plus professional skill teacher in addition to professional skill soldier. It doesn't mean that your medieval Green beret analog is the only one who can teach local soldiers but it does mean the Green beret analog does it better than a soldier with simply the professional skill soldier . You don't have to get bogged down on rolls either. You as the DM can say I see you as an elf "Green beret " analog knows how to speak dwarven , has skill ranks in both professional skill soldier , professional skill educator , and diplomacy . Now your elf "green beret " analog can teach dwarves that have been disarmed by ogers to be reequipped and trained by the elf " green berets" analog on how to use bows and it would make sense . You wouldn't have to roll if the elf "green berets" analog had high enough skill ranks . You as the DM can say ," yes you teach these dwarves on how to fight with bow and arrow."
"Skills are there to round out and differentiate your character from other characters" - I like this.
Where things get boring is when the rule books go "Oh, your class is X .. you get these skills, this standardised set of equipment in a handy backpack, [etc]". Sure, it makes for quicker chargen, but handing out premade characters just sucks the life out of the game.
@@EricScheid
Hopefully i have demonstrated that skill point allocation doesn't have to be cookie cutter. If not I apologise that my intent wasn't made successfully .
I agree with much what you said. My titles are what I call "ethical clickbait." They're meant to be provocative. But I support elf green berets.
In practice, I agree with you and find that it's more useful to assign players proficiency on a roll if it suits their race, class, background, or general schtick. So, no skills or freeform skills suits me as a DM. However, I find that having a list of skills to look at helps to give newer players a sense of the types of things they can try to do. Complete freedom without guidelines or strictures is more than a lot of people can handle.
I would have preferred 5E to start with a more minimalist core and make it clear that all of the crunch was optional (as it did with feats), but I also recognize that WOTC had a lot of people besides me to please when it came to releasing a new edition. Mike Mearls talked about a minimalist core with add-ons and different players playing with different levels of details in some of his now-deleted blog posts from the D&D Next development period. The language may have been lost, but some of the design principles of a simple core with (secretly optional) mechanics modules are still lurking within the game we were given.
Barbarians of lemuria has a great skill system as well that follows previous exp and defines your character as you start out. Great video PDM
I find that when skills and the like aren’t defined then there has to be a discussion about how or why someone can do something which seems like a waste of time when it comes up frequently.
This would happen in my table, we're all friends so we can argue with each other without much worry, this have some upsides and downsides, and in a skillless system... Oh boy, we would spend more time arguing about the roll than actually roleplaying it.
I think you're right for the most part, however I think 5e does most of what you're asking for as is. Characters pick some number of skills from a list related to their class, and I admit it's a bit silly you could even make a wizard that isn't proficient in Arcana, but the idea is there. And, characters pick a backgrounds which sounds a lot like what you've described. What I like about this system is it allows you to step outside your class a little bit too. My first character was a Gnome Wizard with the Urchin background, which basically gives you a little bit of Thief flavor.
With this character I had basically exactly the situation you describe on the boat, but with a horse. I told my DM I wanted to ride the horse, and he asked if there's any reason my character would be familiar with riding a horse based on my background. I thought about it, I guess not, and I'm not proficient with animal handling either. He had me make a flat roll against a DC that I failed and fell off the horse. Luckily the ranger knew how to ride a horse, and succeeded on an athletics check to catch my tiny gnome and we ran off evading our enemy.
I think just treating the 5e system with room for interpretation is a great solution.
Proficiency bonus on checks that seem thematically related to your background & class without being more specific is a wee baby step from (and easy to add to) 5e now.
I did very similar in a pre-5e D&D homebrew I used to run. It seems to encourage more focus on the general theme of a character and less on the strategy of picking “useful” items from a list.
My players didn’t argue why they should all be proficient in generally popular things like Spot/Perception (though most seemed new to the game); their way of thinking may have been different because they had no skill list!
DCC is pretty cool on that regard too. Whenever you get to make a skill check, if your background knowledge allows you to have an edge, you roll a d20, else you roll a d10. Simple and straightforward as that.
Recently I heard someone say that new role playing games assume the character can only do something if it is in the rules, OSR assumes the character can do something as long as it isn't prohibited in the rules.
I find this to be true. Old games left most things up the DM for the most flexibility rather than trying to define everything.
A dwarf that wants to spend the time to make dwarven ale, or a hill dwarf or mountain gnome wants to distill whiskey might be successful, but might need to deal with the king' s revenue agents.
I think its less new roleplaying games, and more new players. They don't realize they can do whatever cause they read the book and assume thats it. Meanwhile the opposite is always true, its just up to the DM to find a way to make it happen. A DM can take any old system and be like "Nope sorry not in the rules, can't do that."
I have mixed feelings on skills. I like having skills written down on my character sheet to remind me they exists, but not having any and just go with the character background sounds much better. All spellcasters should de facto know "spellcraft" (from d&d 3.5), they're casting spells!
Absolutely. Some versions of Traveller just give you some extra points toward your ability score based on things you have experience in. D&D's current skill system has such game-centric, unnatural language, and instead of the players being creative in their solutions they look for a skill button to press.
I've come to the same conclusion. I only use the skills as a reminder of what characters are proficient at, because sometimes they want to learn some skill that they initially didn't have, and I need to remember those
Agreed, the addition of Skills take away imagination. I feel the same way about Feats
We need an MRI of someone playing DnD.
I volunteer as tribute.
galaxy_brain.jpg
In my homebrew I renamed the Thief the "Skill Class".
I initially did not want to list any skills for the characters, but I realized there would be basic things they would be doing such as "searching", and "listening" which later influenced me to list Thief abelites for my "Skill Class".
I disregarded percentiles and adopted the d20 ascending mechanic.
Skills are a natural part of the fame whether is is a human searching for a secret door or an elf.
Simplification is what is needed.
I suggest 6e comes in a Basic Set as well as Advanced books.
No matter how much you love or hate Prof you have to admit his videos definitely make you think.
D&D had it's first rush of popularity without a skill system. Players just explained what they wanted to do and the DM judged what to roll based on a character's class and stats. It kept everyone engaged at the table instead of looking through lists of skills looking for the "right" combination.
I never experienced this "looking through lists of skills", and i simply couldn't play without skills, we would spend more time arguing if the "DC" i set for that roll was fair than roleplaying what the roll did.
There are barely any skills now, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
@@rikardosilva1754 don’t set a DC. Just have them roll under or equal to their ability score with a d20.
"I've graduated from Shire U with a Master's in Halfling Gender Studies...may I take your order me-Lord?"
Did you just assume their gender?
@@vaxrvaxr
That makes no god damb sense
@@vaxrvaxr wow, where you dropped as a baby?
@@ademiranda2 Looks like you were.
Just a thank you for pointing me towards XDM. I've bought it and read it and now use their super simple system in my game, and my party love it. It's lead to some really memorable, quick and fun combats.
They still sort of use their 5E sheets as a guide, but now we are able to do anything and aren't restricted by arbitrary rules.
Unline you, I play a pretty cartoony game, but it lends itself very well to that too.
Glad you liked it. It's always 50/50 but I love it.
This looks like it'll be one of your videos that either completely opens my eyes or makes me roll them lol
Edit: the roguish talents for skills is eye opening
I've played a lot of different RPGs over 40 years and my favorites have always been ones with good skill systems.
What are the best, in your opinion?
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 I liked GURPS, which had a good bell curve skill system and the various Chaosium games (RuneQuest, CoC, Nephilim, etc) which had straight forward percentage based skills. (Beware of games that have you casting a bunch of wacky dice with little idea of your chances of success.) In these skill based games it felt like you could more easily customize your character to a concept instead of being pigeonholed into classes or fictional cliches. The lack of "levels" in those games helped too. It allowed new characters to join a campaign with experienced characters and still be relevant.
The problem isn't that D&D has too many skills or even too few skills. The problem is that for the most part there isn't a mechanism for characters to aquire new skills over time. With few exceptions they get their skills at 1st level and that is it. And then all skill progression is tied to their level based upon proficiency bonus.
Yes this concept grates with me as if not acquired as part of their background or class it seems odd that, for instance, a fighter who's been around the block cannot pick up medicine as a new skill. Am trying to work it in as an experience point cost and/or time & money spent learning a new skill.
That's because you want to avoid overlap in skills. Because one thing the skill system should do, is make you an expert in the field for the party.
Why am a traveling wizard looking for magical knowledge, if everyone can get arcana and be nearly/as good as my character who is the magic nerd in the party?
Same for stuff like survival, investigation, they give characters chance to shine among their peers. Which is why as DM I limit who can roll what based on context.
@@Mirekluk I don't know that you want to avoid overlap in skills. There's no problem with overlap. Ideally you would like each character to be the expert in a particular skill that can help the party so that character has an opportunity to shine.
But there are some skills that would be quite beneficial if everyone was proficient in them. Stealth, athletics, acrobatics, investigation and perception all fall into that category.
@@kellyweaver8422 as someone who basically plays just Pathfinder 1e, you have class skills, but can also put points into a skill that isn't and level each skill as little or as much as you want.
@@kellyweaver8422 Oh, it is beneficial. But for me it's boring. I like when I am good at something and not good at other things.
And I would argue that the lack of overlap can quite nicely give the entire party the big benefit, while giving the spotlight to the expert.
Stealth : We need to get past this patrolled area. The rouge/ranger goes ahead to memorize the patrol patterns, good hiding spots and maybe even creates distractions, as the party proceeds.
Athletics: Almost anything that requires the entire party to succeed in this check could be solved by rope.
Acrobatics: about the same as above, altough more tricky. Gotta admit.
Investigation: Int is already dump stat unless wizard or artificer. I personally regard this one as logic and math skill. And again, not many instances when you need everyone to succeed. Usually one is more then enough.
Perception: This is tied to combat, so I will not say that overlap here is bad. The higher it is, the less chance of surprised condition. Outside of combat the same as investigation applies.
The reason why I don't want big overlaps is that I want the expert to feel special among the party. I play wizard and nothing beats being the magic nerd. And nothing sucks more when expert fails and rookie randomly succeeds. I personally encourage DM's and players to try to lean into your special place in the party, and if all of you need to solve the problem, make the expert make it easier for the rest. He will feel awesome, as without him, they would most likely fail. The rest will feel glad they have him. And you will grin behind the DM screen as they pat him on the shoulders.
What's that "Warhammer Adventure" book on your shelf?
Shadow Theory Very perceptive. It’s the soft-bound version of the Enemy Within.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Got it! That's an awesome collectible.
great topic. I can think of many rules that I think should be updated.
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Numenera isn't really "skillless". It's just that skills are not drawn from a set list and are more loosely defined: e.g., trained when deceiving others; trained when making a positive social impression; etc.
I don't see the value of removing skills. In my mind it comes down to how the DM and players really communicate.
Firstly, if you play the 5E rules as written, you shouldn't really give calls to skills anyways. It's supposed to be ability checks, but a player can get their skill bonus applied if the DM allows it.
Of course it's often easier to say "okay give me an Arcana Roll" but really it's an intelligence check, and the DM should determine if the Arcana applies.
Maybe a language is required to unlock the arcana?
We also have proficiency in cases where two characters might have the same skill level, but the Goliath took Halfling Gender Studies, and thus knows how better to approach the Halfling Feminists, than the Human who only has charisma.
To me picking skills is just as much a part of telling the story of my character as anything else, and removing that makes the characters feel blander on paper.
In theory you could remove all the skills and maybe make a "interest" type system, almost like feats, but not as precise. In a sense how tool proficiency work in Xanathars. Ultimately though it still boil downs to a "general idea" and how we interpret it.
Our group did a small change to some skills. Persuasion, Intimidation and Deception. We saw that the charisma characters tended to take all three skills because "that's where they are good" and thus it always became a "I pick whatever"
So we made Intimidation a Strength Check, and Deception and Inteligence check. Thinking that a strong looking character is more intimidating and deception is a smart mans game.
We did this mostly to give more characters a chance to play in social interactions.
One of my characters also want's to get a pet hunting hawk, but doesn't have animal handling. We decided to treat the hawk as more of a tool proficiancy, since the character only want's a Hawk to communicate with and send out to scout, but animal handling is generally a "bigger" thing. Sort of like Dwarfs Stone cunning, where they can get a bonus on history checks about stone work in a sense.
Professor Dungeon Master, I have a question thats off topic but I am curious.
As a DM how many times has a TPK occurred in a game you were running?
My best friend and part-time DM has had two in the past year and is now looking into hard-core modes. I know the rules we've been using lend themselves to less TPK and overall character death as it is.
Reminds me GURPS "Do you have Engineering: Airships at tech level 6?" "No, can I default off Engineering: Antimatter Reactors?"
I allow my characters to swap out standard skills for any skill they can imagine.
Cool. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
If I wanted more Skills, I'd play more GURPS!!
that's exactly what i want , but with D&D's Monster Manuals and pre made fantacy creatures
@@azathothwakesup it's called Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game
All Palladium games appear skill heavy.
But Shadowrun is even worse. You need a minimum of three ranks of a skill to be any good at it, five or six ranks to really start succeeding. Problem is, you buy every single point of your skills, so you're going to have various specialists. If you pick more than four to five skills, you're not going to be good at anything.
GURPS actually has a skill-lite system called “Bang” skills that the GM can offer. You can buy a more expensive skill like Guns! or Soldier! that covers a broad class of skills rather than specific ones. There is broad latitude to define these skill groups.
PDM, great video as always. Can you please cite your sources in the link section of your videos? You reference so many awesome systems (Black Hack etc.) and resources (TED talk?) in your video, it would be nice to go back and look through those sources AFTER we watch your excellent videos. Careful or Dungeon U will come for your credentials!
I agree. One system called Cogent Replay has a really interesting thing called a Vocation. Which allows you to add a bonus to any check you make that would fall under the Vocation.
Five torches deep basically does what you ask for. You have stats, and a list of areas of competence in which you add your proficiency bonus.
This is why I like DCC RPG, some skills, but not loads.
What are you talking about? There is no skill in DCC RPG
@@brabra2725 Yes there are. page 38 Thief skills by Level and Alignment.
@@johannesstal270 Yeah but are not skills the way he means like general skills for all players and every activity there exist.
@@brabra2725 that's exactly what I meant when I said some skills but not loads
Thanks for awesome videos!
Awesome quote: "Tracy Hickman's Law of Game Design: The more realistic you try to make your game the more unwieldy and unplayable it becomes."
Is that from a book, article, video? Where is that from?
From here: th-cam.com/video/LvQzOqgsZCk/w-d-xo.html
Around 340...I love that suggestion, moving from individual skills to tiers of class focus.
I'm sure I'm in the minority on this but why does it seem like everyone thinks that fast, fast, fast makes a good game. If you want things resolved in seconds they make video games that have that covered.
Sometimes you just got to slow things down. I like the crunch and the skills.
Bob the Odd I hear you. Look for my upcoming review of Warhammer 4th Edition. Very crunchy but I still give it a thumbs up.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 I look forward to it. I don't always agree with your videos but they are an excellent resource. Keep up the good work professor.
It depends on group makeup. If players are starting to lose attention it is probably a good sign to speed things up in which a dm has to sacrifice stagnating rules for narrative.
@@shepherd76 oh I understand that. As a younger DM I fell into a combat trap. That combat took over 4 hours (one fight) it was miserable. Only point I was trying to make is that, as you strip more and more away, for the sake of speedier gameplay, I think you'll lose a little bit of the point of playing. Just my opinion.
The reason experienced DMs strive for quick mechanics is because nothing else in RPGs is quick. We're substituting our senses, thoughts, actions, environments, and experience through words. That takes time, and a lot of it. The last thing you want is to slow that already glacial process down further with clunky mechanics.
It's funny that you mention video games. They're ideal for the type of game you seem to want. Mechanical crunch works best when paired with systems that handle overhead, like a video game's engine does.
100% agree specific skills and points aren’t needed at all
Roll under intelligence or strength or dexterity. Seemed to work perfectly. The poor thief had to actually roll something else to move silently or hide, so the wizard with high DEX could be more adept at doing somethingthat's in the thief's wheelhouse.