# On 5E Skills (aka How Game System Affects Immersion)



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

This is a topic I've found myself discussing in various forms over the last couple of days. I'm not sure why it's come up so much right now, but I've found myself discussing it in more than once context - a couple of threads here at EN World, an extended Twitter conversation last night, and more. So this is an atempt to compile my thoughts on the matter, partly cobbled together from my previous, scattered, incoherent posts both on Twitter and in the following threads:

Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)
Time to bring back the prose?
Player Language
I think this may be a contentious discussion; it's important to understand this is just my opinion on my games. I'll also note that I know no more than anyone else, and less than many - I haven't seen any playtest material or been given any special insight into D&D Next. So this is all conjecture based on the little we do know.

The subject, in broad strokes, is the way a game's rules and how they're presented can influence the very way a player interacts with a game and a game world. One just has to look at the many different fantasy RPGs on the market to see that different rules structures directly influence how a game is played - not just in terms of the rules being used, but also the way players immerse themselves, the language they use, and so on. These things are all subtly nudged - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not - in one direction or another by the way the rules are presented to you.

Now, of course, I know that this is not a universal rule. I know that you, reading this right now, are a superlative DM and none of the following examples would EVER find their way onto YOUR game table. You're just that damn good! I, unfortunately, am merely average. Maybe I'm the only average DM in a world of DMing geniuses (which I guess makes them average and me poor) but I suspect that what I'm about to talk about is not a rare occurrence.

One common criticism levelled at D&D 4th Edition is that the game tends towards the "gamist" - by that, I mean that players all too often think in terms of the game rules rather than in terms of their actions within the game world. So, rather than threatening the orc by crushing a mug in your hand (an example Rodney Thompson used in a recent column), the player "uses the Intimidate skill". This extends beyond skills into the power structure of D&D 4th Edition, but in my mind it's to do with a particular aspect of player psychology: that when presented with a list of things you can do, you are instinctively predisposed to simply choose an option from that list. You're not interacting in an immersive sense with the game world; you're choosing an option from your character sheet. 

Moreover, you're not choosing an _action_, you're choosing which _rule_ you will use. You're deciding to use this _skill_ or that _power._ This is exacerbated by a list of skills which are - on the whole - almost verbs in their naming convention. So by extension you're choosing from a finite list of actions defined by the skills on your character sheet.

I don't think this is limited to 4E, by the way, although it tends to be exaggerated by finite power lists and skill challenges in that system. 3.x suffers from it, too. I _think_ (if I understand what I'm seeing in recent blog posts and columns on DDI) that the structure of 5E will tend away from it, though, as I'll explain shortly.

As I mentioned earlier, the usual response to this is "never at MY table!" - and if that's your response, then I envy you. You're a better DM than me. If you're immune to the effect of rules structures, I suspect you're a rare beast, albeit a lucky one. It also probably doesn't matter which game you buy; for many of us, though, different game systems result in different styles of play.

So why do I think 5E is going to improve this aspect of gameplay? I think the two following things combine in a subtle way to affect that trend:


Skills are ability checks (with modifiers for an open-ended list of things you might be good at), not a finite list of 20 "doing words" like "Intimidate";
A check is not always needed, depending on the ablity score.
I think there is a difference between "I use Intimidate" and "I make a Charisma check". Most of the skills in 3.x/4E are presented as actual verbs - they sound like actions. "Intimidate" sounds like an action; "Charisma" does not. In addition, "Charisma" is much broader than "Intimidate". So the _mechanic_ you use does not have the same name as the _action_ you're taking, meaning it's less likely that you'll simply conflate the two.

It's a subtle difference, but I feel it can tie into how a player sees and interacts with the rules structure. I'm not saying it magically overrides a particular group's playstyle; just that it has a net average little nudge towards descriptions rather than skill names.

But - and here's the kicker. None of that matters; it won't often come up, because this structure makes it difficult for players to declare when ability checks are needed. This ties in to the other clever part - not every action needs a check: some of it you can do automatically with a good ability score, and therefore the player himself doesn't know whether a check is required unless the DM tells him so. This is a change from 3E/4E, where easy actions just had a low DC - technically a check was still needed, so the player knew he could declare he was making a Climb check and that the DC was (probably) 5. In 5E, the check is dispensed with for certain actions, but the player doesn't know.

This means we have a player not being able to say "I make a Strength check". He doesn't know that a Strength check is needed. If ability checks are only called for by the DM in response to appropriate input from the player, the player has no choice but to say "I crush a mug." 

He can't say "I make a Strength check" because the DM replies "I'll decide when you need to make a Strength check, thank you very much; now what are you doing?" 

Player: "Oh, I'm crushing a mug."

DM: [knowing the character has 17 Strength and the mug is flimsy] "You're a strong guy; the mug crushes easily."

In the latter case, no check was even needed. In some cases, a check might be needed. But the player is no position to determine whether or not an ability check is required, so is unable to declare he's making one. All he can do is describe his action and wait for the DM to either tell him what happens or ask for an ability check. The player doesn't say "I'm making an ability check", because unless the DM specifically asks for one - he's _not_ making an ability check.

Don't get me wrong - it's not absolute. It wont' magically change peoples' speech patterns. It's a nudge, not mind control. Things like "I'm using STR to indimidate him" - while of course you _could_ still utter those words, presenting the rules in this way will help tend to encourage people to say "I'm crushing a mug" instead.

That's gotten a bit rambly. A shorter version is to say that I _think_ that the system is being designed to encourage players to take an action in the game world rather than select a game mechanic.

I fully realise that the games currently advise you to do the former; that that's how they're intended to be used; and that good DMs may not be as affected by it as, say, people like me. But I strongly feel that the game system itself has as important - if not more important - an effect on how the player approaches the world as does the DMing advice in the book (and the examples of play and so on).

That's why we like different game systems. They feel different. Otherwise every fantasy RPG would feel exactly the same, and we all know that's not the case.

Now cue responses full of people describing the superior - correct! - way in which _they_ do it, and why anyone who doesn't is dumb.


----------



## Gargoyle (May 2, 2012)

My only concern with the emphasis on ability scores is that ability scores are already too important with regards to which race is chosen, which magical items are desired, etc.  

By placing even more importance on ability scores, I fear we will see even more characters starting with 20 in their primary ability, and dumping everything else, and that parties will feature one guy who does all the lifting, one who does all the talking, one who does all the thinking, etc.

Still, I can't think of a better way to do it.  Detailed skills rules really have gotten too much attention from the rules in the last few editions and I would prefer this to what we have now.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 2, 2012)

There's a different way of playing where this isn't so much of an issue.  It isn't so much a question of better or worse DMing, as it is of the difference itself, which comes with its own strengths and weaknesses.  Namely, if the group is not particular interested in immersion, per se, then explict, narrative, metagaming (whatever you want to call it) elements used to move the story forward don't have much of this issue.

So your statement about average DMs to me is a bit like saying, "I'm having a bit of trouble with my backhand, and my serve has lost some of its speed.  Other sports enthusiasts may not have much trouble with this, but I guess they are just better."  Meanwhile, I'm over here trying to determine a faster, cleaner way to clear hurdles or working on my switch hitting. 

That's not to say that language doesn't have an effect on the non-immersive style(s).  I'm sure it does.  I'm not so sure the effect is the same.


----------



## dkyle (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> As I mentioned earlier, the usual response to this is "never at MY table!" - and if that's your response, then I envy you.




Actually, my response is: that happens quite frequently at my table, in most RPGs we play (which actually does not include DnD currently), and I don't really mind.  If it's a straightforward use of intimidation, in a circumstance where it obviously applies, I don't really need to hear a flowery description of what you're doing. If you just want to tell what what approach your character has decided to use, and roll the dice, that's fine by me.

If you tell me that you are going to use "Strength to Intimidate", in, say, 4E, I'd ask "how?", since that's not a standard usage of the rules. If you say "I crush a mug to scare them", I'd probably give a small, one-time bonus, if your STR is greater than their Charisma.  But I wouldn't be comfortable simply allowing it, unless there's a clear reason why "crushing stuff" would not become a consistent way to gain a major mechanical benefit while Intimidating. If you want that, there are ways to get it, according to the rules of the game.

I think it's great that there are well defined rules a player can point to and say "I do this", confident in how it'll work. I don't like it when players have to make decisions without an understanding of what mechanics the DM will have them use to resolve their action.


----------



## Minigiant (May 2, 2012)

My main fear is which open skills to be interpreted by the DM, the it all must be interpreted by the DM.

And the interpretation can change between DMs with no real rule behind some actions.

For example, the system would nudge me into having my charming scoundrel "tries to explain to the local lord that helping the party helps the lord too"

Charisma based right?

Nope. DM says "explaining is Intelligence based so roll Int". But the scoundrel has 10 Intelligence and isn't charming anymore as he fails the check.

Or the "All social is Charisma vs Wisdom" DM. Breaking the mug is still Charisma: Roll 1d20-2.

Hard skills may have created undesirable language but almost everyone understood what ability score was used if someone said "I use Climb" and "I Intimidate". Then any house rules and cornercases were dealt with early. But open interpretation to force saying actions in the world leaves a chance where every table is VASTLY different instead of slightly.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 2, 2012)

Gargoyle said:


> My only concern with the emphasis on ability scores is that ability scores are already too important with regards to which race is chosen, which magical items are desired, etc.
> 
> By placing even more importance on ability scores, I fear we will see even more characters starting with 20 in their primary ability, and dumping everything else, and that parties will feature one guy who does all the lifting, one who does all the talking, one who does all the thinking, etc.



A valid concern. If every fighter has to have 20 Str and 6 Cha to be effective, the game becomes homogenous, boring, and strains credibility. The solution is to make all ability scores matter to each character. For instance, having six saving throws. Using all six ability scores regularly (particularly Wis and Cha) makes the game wonderfully dynamic. It's not balance between races or classes that really makes or breaks the game, it's balance between the abilities.

I haven't used six saves, but I've used Cha-based action points, Wis-based initiative, multiple casting stats for each class, and a sprinkling of other rules to enforce MAD. Believe me, it works.


----------



## Greg K (May 2, 2012)

I don't consider myself a superior DM. However, I don't see why they just don't give examples of describing skills and advice to the DM on eliciting descriptions from players.

If this was 3e

Player (grabbing the dice): I intimidate him
DM: Not so fast. How is Mog intimidating him?
Player: Mog uses his great strength to crush the mug he is holding and stares menacingly at him (If the player had just stared blankly after having been asked the question, the DM could ask, "What does Mog do or say to try and intimidate him ?")

Whether or not Mog needs to make a strength roll to crush the mug is a DM decison. The DM could choose not to require a strength roll if he feels Mog is strong enough and the material is flimsy).

Now for the reaction, it would depend on whom he is intimidating.  Intimidate (Str) sounds logical (see the 3.0 DMG section on using alternate alternate ability scores for skills).  The DM could add a modifier or penalty to the check or DC based upon what he knows of the person being intimidated and/or Mog is well known(see DMs best friend in the DMG and note that +2/-2 is a suggestion, but modifiers can range to +/-20). Heck the 3.0 DMG talks about bonuses for being specific. The DM might decide that that the description was worth a +2 bonus on its own to the intimidate check.  Then again, if the person being intimidated would just naturally be intimidated by the feat of strength, the DM might let the attempt automatically succeed.

  Most players, in my experience, get the hang of being descriptive (or at least make an attempt) once they have been prompted a few times and know it is expected of them.  I would rather keep skills and have the DMG give advice on eliciting description from players (giving them new tools and teaching DMs how to improve) and the PHB have some examples of providing description.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Greg K said:


> I don't consider myself a superior DM. However, I don't see why they just don't give examples of describing skills and advice to the DM on eliciting descriptions from players.
> 
> If this was 3e
> 
> ...




I mentioned examples in the book. Yes, they have an effect. And of course the books will have examples, just like every iteration of D&D - and in fact, every RPG ever written - has had. That's a no brainer, which is why it didn't get any more than a brief comment in my article.

My position was that rules structure ALSO has an effect.

Maybe not in your game. Definitely in mine, though. Players vocalise differently in different rules systems, even when those rules systems all contain advice just like that you're suggesting.

And that's what I believe WotC is trying to tap into.


----------



## Neuroglyph (May 2, 2012)

As I mentioned to you via Tweet yesterday, Morrus, most of the time my players describe what their character is doing, and I tell them what appropriate skill or ability score is applicable.  It definitely helps immersion over calling out "I roll my blankety-blank skill to make blank happen", and not every player I game with feels that level of comfort.  But the others at the table definitely help get them thinking more in terms of immersing themselves in their role and less on the mechanics on the character sheet.

As far as your Intimidation example goes, I tend to fall back on my old Champions days for how intimidation works - like a Presence attack.  To me, crushing a mug, quickdrawing a weapon, creating a small but dangerous magical effect all fall under the category of "displaying your power" and if successful, increase the chance of intimidating the opponent.  In Champions, such displays would increase the damage dice of the attack, but in D&D, your display of power logically grants a situational bonus depending on how intimidating I'd judge it to be versus the target.  

For instance, walking up to a blacksmith and crushing a mug in his face is likely to be scoffed off - he's a brawny guy and can do that himself.  Walking up to the same guy and making some strange fire creature appear momentarily in his forge (illusory or really) is probably going to make him think you're a scary spellslinger (+2 to the Intimidation check).  Likewise, the mug-crusher probably has a better chance of intimidating the scrawny bureaucrat or the portly out-of-shape merchant, because they could never display such might.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Neuroglyph said:


> As I mentioned to you via Tweet yesterday, Morrus, most of the time my players describe what their character is doing, and I tell them what appropriate skill or ability score is applicable.  It definitely helps immersion over calling out "I roll my blankety-blank skill to make blank happen", and not every player I game with feels that level of comfort.  But the others at the table definitely help get them thinking more in terms of immersing themselves in their role and less on the mechanics on the character sheet.
> 
> As far as your Intimidation example goes, I tend to fall back on my old Champions days for how intimidation works - like a Presence attack.  To me, crushing a mug, quickdrawing a weapon, creating a small but dangerous magical effect all fall under the category of "displaying your power" and if successful, increase the chance of intimidating the opponent.  In Champions, such displays would increase the damage dice of the attack, but in D&D, your display of power logically grants a situational bonus depending on how intimidating I'd judge it to be versus the target.
> 
> For instance, walking up to a blacksmith and crushing a mug in his face is likely to be scoffed off - he's a brawny guy and can do that himself.  Walking up to the same guy and making some strange fire creature appear momentarily in his forge (illusory or really) is probably going to make him think you're a scary spellslinger (+2 to the Intimidation check).  Likewise, the mug-crusher probably has a better chance of intimidating the scrawny bureaucrat or the portly out-of-shape merchant, because they could never display such might.




Yup, I am aware that everybody is a superior DM who never had that problem. And that they'll all individually describe why to me. 

I think you're missing the point of the post though. It's not "I have this problem: how do you fix it?"; it's " This is what I think WotC is trying to do with D&D Next".

So what I'm interested in is not how other people handle it. It's: do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?


----------



## dkyle (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> So what I'm interested in is not how other people handle it. It's: do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?




You are probably right.  They've said a lot about wanting to "empower" DMs, and making them the gatekeepers to the actual mechanics fits with that.

Unfortunately, I don't like the brand of empowering DMs that entails substituting DM judgement calls and fiat instead of clear, well-defined mechanics.


----------



## DimitriX (May 2, 2012)

I like and agree with a lot of what you've posted.  My new passion is Goodman Games' DCC RPG.  For me, that IS D&DNext.  It has a very simple skill system.  First, there is no skill list.  The character describes what they would like to do.  The DM rules if the character can do the skill based upon the character's occupation from 0-level character creation (Yes! ZERO level) and the player makes a roll using an ability score decided upon by the DM.  DC ratings (similar to what we saw in 3/3.5/4e) set the difficulty or they can be opposed.  Its just that fast.  It depends entirely upon the imagination and creativity of the player and DM.

One thing I noticed when running a game with my group was the direction they looked.  In 4e, when I asked my players, "What do you do?", they usually looked down at their character sheets.  In DCC RPG, when I ask them the same question, they look up and far away.  In 4e, they were looking to the rules to give them an answer.  In DCC RPG, they are looking within.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

DimitriX said:


> One thing I noticed when running a game with my group was the direction they looked.  In 4e, when I asked my players, "What do you do?", they usually looked down at their character sheets.  In DCC RPG, when I ask them the same question, they look up and far away.  In 4e, they were looking to the rules to give them an answer.  In DCC RPG, they are looking within.




That's a great illustration, more eloquently put than my version.

This element of player psychology definitely exists, and it is strongly influenced as much by rules structure as it is by individuals or pages of advice.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> That's a great illustration, more eloquently put than my version.
> 
> This element of player psychology definitely exists, and it is strongly influenced as much by rules structure as it is by individuals or pages of advice.




The players at our table look at each other in those situations.  I'll have to think about that some to make a stab at how the rules structure works with that tendency.


----------



## DimitriX (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> That's a great illustration, more eloquently put than my version.
> 
> This element of player psychology definitely exists, and it is strongly influenced as much by rules structure as it is by individuals or pages of advice.




Yes, the rules and even the layout of the rules affects psychology.  One of the things that I picked up on with 4e was that there would be pages and pages and pages of rules and powers, but few, if any, on fluff.  WotC just assumed that people would fill in the fluff for themselves.  But, they also targeted new players who may not know enough to fill in the fluff.  With nothing more to go on, they focus on rules and powers.  I think that's a reason why almost every 4e game I've seen turned into a table top miniatures skirmish game.

You know DnDNext better than just about anyone here on the forums.  I bet if you look at DCC RPG, you'll see that Goodman Games has already solved a lot of the problems that WotC is still trying to address.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

DimitriX said:


> You know DnDNext better than just about anyone here on the forums.




Nah. There are plenty here who have seen or played it. I'm neither.


----------



## Rhenny (May 2, 2012)

This is a terrific issue to foreground for the next edition.  Great ideas, Morrus, et. al.   

I hate rules induced/options paralysis, which often happens when players feel the need to find the right skill or power to use in a situation.   

I think your argument can even be extended to some extent to choices of powers in 4e as well (and other games too).  While the powers in 4e helped players come up with actions to do in combat (the cards made them easy to see and refer to), I feel that they also limited immersion and most of the times when I would ask a player what he or she wanted to do in an combat round, he would have to look at all his cards and then make a decision.   Sometimes (especially with wizard, but also with fighter and other classes) a player would spend time deciding what to do during his turn, but then rely on Magic Missle more times than I would like.

I'd love for D&D Next to make both non-combat and combat choices seem less scripted, and from what we've read (limited to posts and WoTC articles) it seems like they are thinking about this too.

p.s.  After writing this, I read one of Morrus' other posts on another thread, which basically says a similar thing about the powers.  Cheers.


----------



## EmbraCraig (May 2, 2012)

I agree with most of this - it's become a bit of an inside joke at one of my games. We don't look around, we "perception-ise", along with other things...

I don't really try to get around it other than with social encounters - I've made it clear to players that they'll get bonuses to their rolls, or easier DCs, if they actually tell me in character what they're saying, and it is a good angle with a particular NPC.  Of course, they don't get that bonus if they get their lines wrong for the NPC ...


----------



## Alphastream (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> So what I'm interested in is not how other people handle it. It's: do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?




I think you are spot on. From what was shared at D&DXP, it really sounds like your PC doesn't have intimidate. They have perhaps a background that helps them with checks to influence people through force (this may actually use the word "intimidate", but there is no intimidate skill). And, you have your ability.

First, I do agree that this is a move forward (while having a retro feel). You are freed up from a skill list, but you sort of still have them through your background/theme/class/whatever. You are a gladiator, you know how to threaten. You are a merchant, you know trade routes. That sort of language takes us away from the roll and better encourages us to role-play. 

Second, it gets us past the issue of the barbarian that can't intimidate because he isn't charismatic. Because you describe what you do and the DM and player get to collaborate a bit, your description can really get us back to a strength or con or other ability check for intimidate.

Third, if we go back to early L&L columns (assuming they keep this) where they described caps and minimums, it could be that the really great description by the barbarian on how she is crushing the chair against the wall, coupled with the really awesome strength score, all means you don't even roll. You just keep on role-playing.

That's all massive win for me, and I'm a guy that loved 3E skill lists.


----------



## Neuroglyph (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> So what I'm interested in is not how other people handle it. It's: do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?




I think was what I was trying to get at was that there is no "right" way to handle the problem, no perfect solution, because it all comes down to what each individual group and DM defines what "role-playing" means to them.  

Every DM and player has their own ideas of how to immerse in a role-playing game, has their own ideas on what constitutes role-playing, and it's one of the aspects of D&D Next that I fear is likely to be problematic.  It's one of the reasons that we have so many D&D gamers spread across 5 editions of the game, and every one of them feels that they are playing the version that makes sense to them.  For some non-weapon proficiencies are all they need for a skill system, while others look at SRD/d20 skills and feats as the ultimate achievement.  And for still others, none of those systems make sense, and they maintain that OD&D/AD&D with no skill system had it right from the start.

So you can try and create theme and class descriptors instead of skills and feats, and that will make sense to some players and enhance their role-playing experience.  But for every one of those folks that system makes sense to, there could be one or five or even a hundred D&D players out there looking for skills and feat mechanics to help them define the sort of character they are portraying, because that makes sense to them.

And on a personal note, I think the process of creating D&D Next, with its endless polls and secretive community playtesting, has had a tendency to point out more and more of the divisiveness between D&D playstyles, and underscore just how different the gamers of each edition are from each other.  So in actuality, I fear that D&D Next has as much lower chance of uniting the D&D community than it does of creating yet another edition schism and edition war.


----------



## Gundark (May 3, 2012)

There were times in 3rd & 4th edition when a player would look at me and say "I do X" . I would stumble a bit because X wasn't defined in the rules. I know that this isn't exactly what you're talking about but I am hoping that this language change extends to actions in the game as well, the ability for the GM to say " make a dexterity check" in response to an interesting action described by a player is something I hope 5e accomplishes as well


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2012)

Neuroglyph said:


> I think was what I was trying to get at was that there is no "right" way to handle the problem, no perfect solution, because it all comes down to what each individual group and DM defines what "role-playing" means to them.
> 
> Every DM and player has their own ideas of how to immerse in a role-playing game, has their own ideas on what constitutes role-playing, and it's one of the aspects of D&D Next that I fear is likely to be problematic.  It's one of the reasons that we have so many D&D gamers spread across 5 editions of the game, and every one of them feels that they are playing the version that makes sense to them.  For some non-weapon proficiencies are all they need for a skill system, while others look at SRD/d20 skills and feats as the ultimate achievement.  And for still others, none of those systems make sense, and they maintain that OD&D/AD&D with no skill system had it right from the start.
> 
> ...




Yes, yes, but.... do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?


----------



## mlund (May 3, 2012)

Skills/Talents that come as Adjectives can make a world of difference in player psychology. They don't define *what* you do but rather color *how* you do whatever you're doing.

Don't have "Skill Training: Intimidate" and "Intimidate Checks." Have the Skill / Talent called "Imposing."

Skill Training: Bluff? No more. Try "Glib."

Skill Training: Endurance? How about "Tough?"

Even going from Perception check to "Perceptive" helps steer things in this direction.

I'd even shy away from giving players exact modifiers and checks. Let the scale slide a little bit based on role-playing and situation. If the role-playing scenario the player puts forward is a natural fit the "Skilled" character could automatically succeed, or at least enjoy a significant modifier than an "Unskilled" character wouldn't get in the same situation.

In general it's a delight to have players prepare contrivances and schemes to develop their characters' advantages towards a critical non-combat contest with the kind of gusto they normally reserve for combat tactics.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2012)

mlund said:


> Skills/Talents that come as Adjectives can make a world of difference in player psychology. They don't define *what* you do but rather color *how* you do whatever you're doing.
> 
> Don't have "Skill Training: Intimidate" and "Intimidate Checks." Have the Skill / Talent called "Imposing."
> 
> ...




I agree. Steering away from using verbs as skill names stops them being parsed like actions.

You get "Hmm. I'm glib, so I'll try to do X" instead of "I have a high Bluff, so I'll Bluff".


----------



## mlund (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> You get "Hmm. I'm glib, so I'll try to do X" instead of "I have a high Bluff, so I'll Bluff".




Also, automatically and inexorably linking each Skill to an Attribute was a terrible idea. It spawned things like Feats to use Strength to Intimidate instead of Charisma. Giving players a fixed formation of Attribute A + Skill Ranks B = Check Modifier C was painful. The Marshall who never really had any motivation to do anything more than say, "Aw ... come on ..." and roll a d20 was a sore point that always seemed to pull the players away from getting detailed about their actions.

Let the Attribute and Skill in question be determined by the description of the task. The huge, imposing Half-Orc Barbarian picks the guy up by the shift and starts frothing at the mouth does it really matter than he's got an 8 Charisma?

The small, menacing Halfling carving up a pork-shank dramatically while making "idle chat" about how the merchant's daughter is in fine health and how tragic it is when "accidents" happen to the young is definitely milking his 16 Charisma and it doesn't matter one wit than he's 3 feet tall and has an 8 Strength.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Lanefan (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Yes, yes, but.... do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?



I *hope* you're right about WotC's intentions, as those intentions - if true - would be good for the game.

And it goes beyond just skill names.  The very presentation of the rules within the manuals is where it starts, and some of the discussion threads you mention in the news article get into that aspect as well.

In 1e the rules were presented in an entertaining and readable (albeit chaotic) form, to the point where some of us still pull them out just to read now and then.

In 4e the rules were presented in a technical, organized manner with roughly the entertainment value of watching paint dry.  To be read only when necessary.

Somewhere between those there's an ideal presentation - organized enough that required information can be found quickly and easily, yet engaging enough to be bathroom reading long after one has moved on to another system.

Lanefan


----------



## Sigdel (May 3, 2012)

The implied skill system has its merits. But what I am not looking forward to is the rules lawyer who tries to justify using charisma to climb a wall or strength to remember obscure lore on a cult. The rules lawyer in question will undoubtedly know that attrition will make the DM give because the DM doesn't want to bring the game to a screeching halt to argue with a troublesome player.
Now I know that theses will be corner cases, but we will see the threads, and we will learn to fear them.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 3, 2012)

Overall I think this is how WOTC is looking to go, with less game terminology at the table, at least form the player's mouths. 

And I certainly support that idea.


----------



## LostSoul (May 3, 2012)

From what I've seen of this new edition, I suspect it will play out like this:

Player: "I intimidate him into giving me the information about the thieves guild."
DM: "Roll CHA."

Some players might say:

Player: "Why can't I use STR?"

And some DMs might say:

DM: "Okay, roll STR."
or
DM: "How?"

If the DM asks "How?" then the player will be forced to describe his or her action; otherwise the player doesn't.  Because of that I don't see much difference between the new edition and what's come before.

*

I think that Vincent Baker did a good job of covering this subject a few years ago on his blog.  Let's see if I can find those posts:

anyway: Lazy Play vs IIEE with Teeth
anyway: Adequacy, Cause and Effect
anyway: Concrete Examples of Arrows
anyway: Now where WAS I...
anyway: Dice & Cloud: a Symmetry
anyway: A Moment of Judgment
anyway: cloud-to-cloud
anyway: 3 Resolution Systems
anyway: post a comment


----------



## Argyle King (May 3, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> A valid concern. If every fighter has to have 20 Str and 6 Cha to be effective, the game becomes homogenous, boring, and strains credibility. The solution is to make all ability scores matter to each character. For instance, having six saving throws. Using all six ability scores regularly (particularly Wis and Cha) makes the game wonderfully dynamic. It's not balance between races or classes that really makes or breaks the game, it's balance between the abilities.
> 
> I haven't used six saves, but I've used Cha-based action points, Wis-based initiative, multiple casting stats for each class, and a sprinkling of other rules to enforce MAD. Believe me, it works.





Something I started doing (which I learned from GURPS) was sometimes using skills with different abilities than they are normally used with.  For a quick arbitrary example which I'm making up, we'll say that a cleric wants to give a rousing sermon to inspire members of a church.  I might call for a religion check based upon charisma -that would mean Religion skill level plus Cha mod.

I have not done so very often when playing D&D, but there have been a few times I've used the idea.


----------



## GM Dave (May 3, 2012)

For 5e, is WotC looking to go for a less 'word' defined skill system?  Too early to tell.

I say it is too early to tell because it appears they had a system but they've done some re-thinking of their system.  I'm not even sure what we see in the initial Playtest will fully give us a 'clue' as to what the skill system will finalize into.

An open skill role system which just uses the basic attributes is an easy to write system.

You just write a rule saying the player should make a roll against an appropriate attribute and the GM will let you know if you succeed of fail.

That kind of rule when it hits play testing is that it tends to have people wanting to fill in the 'blanks' with 'stuff'.

One of the articles that was written was the developers trying to decide if they got feedback to 'correct' this situation if they 'added' a new rule or they 'provided' more clarification and guidance.

This goes further to a psychology problem of types of people.  Some people can live happily with vague rules and filling in the bits themselves while other people will only allow what is actually written to occur.

I've run into this problem with magic spells and requests to 're-skin' them to provide different themes.  Sometimes I have a GM that says 'sure, go ahead'; sometimes I have a GM that says 'if you pay a feat tax then you can re-skin'; sometimes I have a GM that says 'Magic Missile does what it describes and if you want a different spell then you have to spend Xgp and time to invent a new spell'.

It is not just a 'skill' issue but an issue of how people interact with rules.

Do you reward and encourage people to do 'stunts' in combat like Dragon Age or do you make such things more difficult to do by imposing extra an more difficult roles then simply thumping the person?

It is also a 'game' issue in how people approach the hobby.  If you approach the rules like the rules for a game of monopoly where the dice and rules direct the whole game then you will treat the rules in one way.  If you approach the rules like they are guidelines for how you will have fun and are willing to add in other stuff (land on free parking and collect money or little sister gets to buy park place for half money because she is the youngest).

Some people will argue that if you are just going to 'make stuff up' why bother having rules in the first place.

Some people will argue that story trumps rules and that rolling for skills at all risks derailing a story (Robin Laws Gumshoe system takes this view).

The decision WotC ends up in will depend on the play testers and how Simulationist they demand the system to appear verses how much Story dominant they demand the system to be.

-------------------------------------------

Personally, I've come to dislike the Simulationist approach of 3e.  If you don't have the correct skill then you have a problem.  If you roll poorly then it doesn't matter that you are 'skilled' with a +12 modifier as you will still find yourself unable to do something 'basic' like stabilize a dying person.

There are also issues of skill rolls being needed to repeatedly complete a task that increases the odds of failure (multiple stealth rolls or multiple climb rolls).

I don't see this being 'alleviated' with going to a system of attribute rolls as you will see more design polarity among players and more complaints that they have an 8 or 6 attribute and not having several attributes of 16 or more to put into attribute slots.

I also don't think the developers are really going to get the full feed back on that side of the situation until the playtest opens up to character creation where the developers will see the 'average' character is being chosen to not have a 'rounded' set of attributes.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 3, 2012)

Even though this is completely unrelated, I trying to recruit a group for a Mouse Guard game!  Anyone interested?


----------



## prosfilaes (May 3, 2012)

Everyone always says that the connection of attributes to skills was a bad thing, and points to Intimidate. That seems to be the outlier; there doesn't seem to be another skill that regularly needs to be used with another attribute, and even when they do, making the changes doesn't seem to be a big deal; minus one attribute, add another.

I have a mixed feeling about loosening up skills. As a general rule, in D&D 3 and PF, I can look in the PHB and know what my PC can do. If I'm looking at a chasm, I clearly know whether trying to jump it would be stupid, daring, or trivial. Even if the DM is consistent, it's hard to get that with a loose skill system, and if the DM is not consistent, it can be impossible to make a character that's sufficiently good at something to make me happy. Already, you can run into DMs where most beggers can see through a 35 Bluff; encouraging or expanding that doesn't really make me happy.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 3, 2012)

Dunno. I think the 'problem' isn't solved by dropping skills and relying on attribute checks instead. If you have any kind of check, immersion suffers.

To give a fairly recent example from our 4e campaign:
Our party had been sneaking up on a high cliff overseeing a goblin town. This started a skill challenge to accumulate successes to find a way to enter and navigate the town undetected (although the DM didn't say so; this was just something being obvious to me as a player).

So what did I do? I looked over my list of skills to see which of my trained skills lent itself best to the task. I decided to attempt something involving my Streetwise check and told the DM I was looking for patterns in the goblins' movements, particularly the routes taken by patrols and any buildings that seemed to be highly frequented.

So my DM said "Fine, please make an Insight check."

Naturally, I was a bit miffed by that, since my Insight skill was rather bad. Unfortunately, asking "But wouldn't that rather be a Streetwise check?" didn't sway my DM at all.


There's several things to note here:
- the rules influenced my choice of actions: basically, as a player I try to maximize my chances to succeed at a given task by applying my rules knowledge (in this case about how skill challenges work)
- my character's stats influence my choice of actions: rather than thinking about what my character would likely do, I think about what my character's good at (although it could be argued that the pc knows what he's good at, too, and would prefer actions making use of his best skills)
- describing my actions in non-game-terms can lead to unexpected/unwanted results: I prefer telling my DM "I use skill X to <do stuff>", because this increases ethe likelihood of an expected result. Not mentioning the skill I'd like to use carries a greater risk of being 'overruled' and having to use a different skill.

So, yes, I'm apparently a shameless meta- and powergamer 

As a player I'll always want to maximize my chances to succeed. If the system doesn't have skills, I'll want to use the pc's best attribute instead. If the system doesn't even have attributes, I'll want to use my character's background instead. And if the system is built to only challenge the player's skill, I'll try to use _my_ best skills whenever possible.


----------



## N'raac (May 3, 2012)

Sigdel said:


> The implied skill system has its merits. But what I am not looking forward to is the rules lawyer who tries to justify using charisma to climb a wall or strength to remember obscure lore on a cult. The rules lawyer in question will undoubtedly know that attrition will make the DM give because the DM doesn't want to bring the game to a screeching halt to argue with a troublesome player.






Jhaelen said:


> Dunno. I think the 'problem' isn't solved by dropping skills and relying on attribute checks instead. If you have any kind of check, immersion suffers.




The other side of this becomes "no checks, no rules, GM decides".  This leaves the players unable to play characters whose skills differ markedly from their own.  As an example, we see the games now where you don't roll diplomacy or intimidate - the GM decides whether you have persuaded the NPC based on your player's arguments.  Great immersion right?

Well, until the shy wallflower player wants to play a charming and savvy rogue, sinks their best attribute into CHA, puts all their skill points into interaction-focused skills, and then discovers that the DM decides on his *character's* success based on the *player's* demonstrated skills.  

Meanwhile, the eloquent and glib *player* focuses all of his *character's* resources into combat.  He gets to succeed in combat because of his character's abilities, and in social settings because of his player abilities (despite the fact his character has a 6 CHA and no social skills whatsoever).



Jhaelen said:


> There's several things to note here:
> - the rules influenced my choice of actions: basically, as a player I try to maximize my chances to succeed at a given task by applying my rules knowledge (in this case about how skill challenges work)
> - my character's stats influence my choice of actions: rather than thinking about what my character would likely do, I think about what my character's good at (although it could be argued that the pc knows what he's good at, too, and would prefer actions making use of his best skills)
> - describing my actions in non-game-terms can lead to unexpected/unwanted results: I prefer telling my DM "I use skill X to <do stuff="">", because this increases ethe likelihood of an expected result. Not mentioning the skill I'd like to use carries a greater risk of being 'overruled' and having to use a different skill.
> ...




I would see that a bit differently.  As a character, I'm going to try to use the skills I'm good at because I also want to maximize my chances of success.  And very skilled people can often extrapolate those skills into uses not considered by others.  "This is how my character uses his Streetwise skill" is the rules-based explanation.

Mu character is going to focus on what he's good at.  That savvy and charming rogue will try to solve problems with charm, not force, because he is charming, and not strong.  If he needs someone beaten up, he won't use his 6 STR and 8 CON to administer a lengthy beating.  He'll use his 14 INT and 18 CHA to persuade some local bruiser to administer the beating for him.

What I fear from descriptions to date is that a +2 static bonus is not going to differentiate character skills much.  The result stands a fair chance of becoming Character A (good stat + skill) attempts the action.  Roll fails.  Well, Character B (good stat, no skill) takes a run at it.  Character C (average stat, no skill) and Character D (poor stat, no skill) will try afterwards in the hopes of a lucky roll. 

So the savvy Rogue with a bonus to persuasion tries first, with a +6 bonus (18 CHA and +2 skill).  Oh!  an 8 + 6 = 14, so not enough.  Well, the Priest lacks the skill, but his CHA is pretty good - he'll give it a whirl.  +3 from 16 CHA, so 11 + 3  = 14 - too bad!  Drat - well, let's let the Wizard try.  He has a 10 CHA and no skill, so flat roll.  A 12 - not enough.  Well, that leaves Stinky the Barbarian Dwarf, with his 4 CHA.  May as well give it a whirl...wow - a 19 - 3 = 16 - he made it!

The current model suggests that a reasonably challenging DC for the Rogue will not be achieved by Stinky, but this system seems to imply a much reduced spread between character abilities.  That makes the dice more important than the character's skills and abilities.

Now maybe we're talking about a base characteristic roll, in which case the savvy rogue succeeds automatically, as does the priest.  So there's no possibility that the target can resist their persuasion - no real challenge - and again the Priest is just as good as the Rogue, so we have better differentiation, but not by a lot.

How different do we want characters to be, and how much of that differentiation are we prepared to sacrifice in the interest of simplicity?
</do>


----------



## thzero (May 3, 2012)

Skills were around in 2e and 1e (via the two survival guides)... but really it goes more to the core of the game, skills is just one example.  With attacking or magic use, etc. you end up with the same thing.

Personally I prefer a more detail oriented system like 3X (and others of its ilk, i.e. GURPS, etc) because I'm more detail oriented person.  But in reality even in 3X, and even 4E, what you describe can be done.  Nothing that says you can't let someone succeed at something, especially if it not a opposed type situation, just because there character is really strong or smart.  

Also consider that while for some people the wide open nature of do whatever you want and the DM decides what needs to happen (auto success/failure, need some type of roll, flip of the dice, etc) may be great, how does it play to the mass audience?  I think it makes the game more difficult to play and harder for new, returning, or even younger players to pick up.  

Name a best selling RPG that does this.  Can't really think of any.

Not to mention, not everyone is about in-depth "immersion"!  Some people play just to have some fun, do something different, enjoy screwing around with friends, hacking apart monsters.  Others play for very deep storylines and character development.

Blanket comments such as "If you have any kind of check, immersion suffers." are just stupid.  For *you*, that may be true.  But not for other people, and perhaps not even for the majority.   And if there is a rule or system in a game (any game) that ruins your, your group, or what not immersion into whatever, you can always use "Rule 0" (0th rule of gaming, or robotics) to change it or simply ignore it!



> - the rules influenced my choice of actions: basically, as a player I try to maximize my chances to succeed at a given task by applying my rules knowledge (in this case about how skill challenges work)
> - my character's stats influence my choice of actions: rather than thinking about what my character would likely do, I think about what my character's good at (although it could be argued that the pc knows what he's good at, too, and would prefer actions making use of his best skills)




That isn't necessarily unrealistic or even un-immersive (is that a word? hah); in fact you admitted it in parathensis.  People do that type of stuff on a daily basis (or at least one hopes so).  You try and maximize your strengths and knowledge and put it to best use.  Now thats not to say a person's strengths, abilities, knowledge is always the best tool for the job but nonetheless, typically people are going to naturally try and solve problems using their best attributes.

Bottom line, for me I guess, is that its really easy to go "fluffy" with a "crunchy" game that lends itself to a wide audience that it is to go from a "crunchy" game to a "fluffy" game.  The former is, of course IMO, more easily approachable, has set actions, goals, etc. that can be performed.  The latter is more nebulous and lacks appeal (again back to the question of what is the best selling game of this sort....).

Since AD&D the game (along with lots of others) has been defining actions that the characters can take for us.  Whether it be skills, attacks, how to perform magic, etc.  This isn't a bad thing, not only for your local group, but the community around the game as a whole.  It gives a common understanding of what characters in the game world are able to do; allows the simulation to work across the board.  This allows new modules, campaigns, worlds, etc. to be born and shared.  Allows people to join new groups, have a common core to work from (crap that sounds like Dancy speak); even if the new game/group uses its own variation of house rules (or in 5E case, options).


----------



## 1Mac (May 3, 2012)

I agree that system affects play experience. But the specific distinction you are drawing between "verb" skills and "noun" abilities strikes me as highly subjective and impressionistic. I don't see much difference between "I Intimidate" and "I use Charisma," nor do I see how one or the other discourages the GM from asking players to describe actions, or encourages players to look at their character sheet rather than consider what their characters actually do.

If that distinction helps your group, great, but I doubt it's something you can generalize, and I don't think the 5e team should be especially concerned about it.


----------



## RHGreen (May 3, 2012)

I was really looking forward to 5E being announced, pretty much just after 4E came out.

4E had some great design ideas that I could chew on, but TBH because of its streamlined structure it didn't take very long to digest. Which is great for the game, not so great when you want to ponder and evolve.

I was hoping there would be something good to think about through 5E, and I think this is the focus area.

I used to listen to RPGMP3.com and they did Shadowfell and the rest, and while I enjoyed listening to them there was something missing. Then they moved over to Warhammer. I looked at the rules and didn't really like them. They were a bit haphazard and illogical, but when listening to their game it had more feel to it, more roleplay and description. I couldn't put my finger on why the game had that effect, but what you have written here has hit the nail on the head. The setting and rules are more organic, descriptive and provoke imagination.

Great, this gives me something to ponder, cheers. Hopefully 5E will have an organic, imaginative feel without all of the mess of a system like Warhammer.

EDIT: I think it can be summarized by the term: ORGANIC DESIGN.


----------



## Cybit (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Yes, yes, but.... do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?




Yes.

EDIT: Based on everything I've seen with articles and such, I think what you described is how the game currently plays.


----------



## MortalPlague (May 3, 2012)

N'raac said:


> The current model suggests that a reasonably challenging DC for the Rogue will not be achieved by Stinky, but this system seems to imply a much reduced spread between character abilities.  That makes the dice more important than the character's skills and abilities.
> 
> Now maybe we're talking about a base characteristic roll, in which case the savvy rogue succeeds automatically, as does the priest.  So there's no possibility that the target can resist their persuasion - no real challenge - and again the Priest is just as good as the Rogue, so we have better differentiation, but not by a lot.
> 
> How different do we want characters to be, and how much of that differentiation are we prepared to sacrifice in the interest of simplicity?



In a 4th edition game right now, my rogue has a +17 bonus to stealth.  He's trained, he's dextrous, and he has some items to round it out.  The warlord in our party only has a +4 or so, mostly from half-level.  There's a 13 point difference.  So let's say we're sneaking past a guard post.  What's the DC?  If the DM puts the guards' perception at 22, it means I need to roll a 5 on a d20, while my warlord friend needs to roll an 18.  Rather than attempt to steal quietly past the guards, the warlord will, in all likelihood, stay behind and wait.  The sad fact is, even though his _character_ might make the attempt, as a _player_, he looks at the 85% chance of failure and decides not to attempt the roll.

One of the potential charms of 5th edition is to decrease the spread between someone who's specialized and someone who isn't.  Let's use the same example; my rogue has a +4 from Dexterity, and a +2 bonus while moving quietly.  He's also got +2 for some magic boots.  That winds up being a +8, for a considerable bonus on stealth.  The warlord, on the other hand, has no dexterity bonus, but we'll give him a +2 bonus from a background that has something to do with hunting.  So a +2.  That's a 6 point spread.

DCs will be lower in 5E, due to the lack of half-level inflation.  So let's say it's DC 15 to sneak past.  My rogue makes it on a roll of 7, while the warlord makes that on a roll of 13.  With some clever play on our part, we might get that _advantage_ bonus that's been mentioned by some designers for a further +2.  So I'd make the check on a roll of 5, while the warlord would make it on an 11.

Now that's a check the warlord would risk.  With flatter math and better support for acting outside your specialty, you might get more adventurers who are willing to try something risky.

Furthermore, if my rogue has DEX 18, perhaps he makes the DC 15 stealth check automatically?  We still don't know entirely how that works, but that would do a nice job of rewarding characters for being masters of their field without punishing those who want to try things they aren't ideally suited for.


----------



## Wrathamon (May 4, 2012)

I think you are right about the basic rules being more player described actions instead of using predefined actions.  But, I think they will have an advanced skill module that we can buy and add to the core game for those people who want more structure.


not all players are very good (or dont enjoy) at "the describing what they do or acting" part of role-playing games and the new versions of the game helped those players have as much fun as the creative problem solver or the role-player. 

I'm also fearful that this will slow down play as player's who aren't as quick on their feet try to figure out what their character is saying or doing... then I use this ability or this skill and let the experienced DM describe the outcome.

As a player, I dont mind either way. I actually do more role-playing and describing my actions in 4e then I ever did in 3e or 2nd. I play 4e like I played 1st ... guess I'm weird.


----------



## TheGrandNuge (May 4, 2012)

What I don't really know is, What's the check like, actually? 
My rogue with an 18 dex can succeed at more stuff without rolling than my barbarian with a 12. But when encountering something they both have to roll against, what is the actual check? What bonus does my ability score translate too? Is the rogue really only 2 better, maybe 4 with a specialized background, at sneaking around the villain? Even though I can do a lot more w/o even rolling than the barbarian?

I also worry about the narrowing of the gap 'tween an expert and someone who happens to have a good natural ability score. I understand wanting everyone in the group to be willing to try to sneak around a bad guy sometimes, and the like; but I also like having the 'go to' guys in the party for certain tasks. The guy who is always scouting ahead, etc...A +2 difference does not really create that. 

So a +2 from background and that's it? To differentiate my 8th level assassin from a 3rd level bard with the same dex? Something still has to be missing here. What if I don't choose a supersneaky background, can I become supersneaky somehow later? I think maybe an assassin should have a better chance at becoming supersneaky than the court rogue apart from one choice at the beginning of my career.
Can you be an expert sneaker? Or expert anything? I wonder how that is to be accomplished.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 4, 2012)

MortalPlague said:


> The sad fact is, even though his _character_ might make the attempt, as a _player_, he looks at the 85% chance of failure and decides not to attempt the roll.




If the player wants to roleplay his character as brash and charging in where only fools dare to tread, then go ahead and make the attempt. But if the character has any wisdom, they shouldn't try that.



> Furthermore, if my rogue has DEX 18, perhaps he makes the DC 15 stealth check automatically?  We still don't know entirely how that works, but that would do a nice job of rewarding characters for being masters of their field without punishing those who want to try things they aren't ideally suited for.



At a certain point, we can do that right now by lowering the DCs. If you want those good in it to do it automatically and those unskilled in it to have a chance, just make it a low enough check. Either way, you're toning down the challenge.

Personally, I like my characters being good at things. I want to play wizards that can rattle off the mating habits of the Western Limnorm, despite the fact only one has shown up on this plane. I want to play the rogue that can climb a 50 feet tall glass wall without equipment. In neither case do I want the fighter honing in on my skills. I want characters to do the impossible, not things that anyone else in the party could have done on a good roll.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2012)

1Mac said:


> If that distinction helps your group, great, but I doubt it's something you can generalize, and I don't think the 5e team should be especially concerned about it.




My group plays the current iteratons of D&D and Pathfinder, not 5E (on account of it not having been written yet).  Whether it would help my group specifically or not, I don't know; I'm just making observations on what I believe WotC's design direction is.

If you don't think that's what they're trying to do, fair enough.  As my original post indicates, it's what I think they're trying to do.


----------



## Thotas (May 4, 2012)

I'm guessing that the times the DM just says "yeah, you make it, no roll needed" are the replacement of the "take 10" rule.


----------



## DimitriX (May 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> My group plays the current iteratons of D&D and Pathfinder, not 5E (on account of it not having been written yet).  Whether it would help my group specifically or not, I don't know; I'm just making observations on what I believe WotC's design direction is.
> 
> If you don't think that's what they're trying to do, fair enough.  As my original post indicates, it's what I think they're trying to do.




I agree that this is what the designers of 5e would like to do.  The problem is that I don't trust WotC enough to fully believe that this is what they will be allowed to do.  WotC has many other considerations other than what constitutes the best game design.  Because WotC has gotten away from just plain old tabletop games with a small group of friends, they have to make other considerations.  With D&D Encounters, they have to allow for a standardized game experience in which a player can go from one store in one town to another store in another town and still be playing the same game.  Rules, skills, powers, and abilities all have to play the same way regardless of which gaming group you are in.  This means that the level of creativity that the DM and players are allowed to us must be controlled.  So, I'm afraid that unless the whole WotC concept of marketing is changed, then we might get some variation of 4e instead of a true 5e.


----------



## epochrpg (May 4, 2012)

Gargoyle said:


> My only concern with the emphasis on ability scores is that ability scores are already too important with regards to which race is chosen, which magical items are desired, etc.
> 
> By placing even more importance on ability scores, I fear we will see even more characters starting with 20 in their primary ability, and dumping everything else, and that parties will feature one guy who does all the lifting, one who does all the talking, one who does all the thinking, etc.




And that would make the party the A-Team!  I love it when a plan comes together.


----------



## DMBrendon (May 4, 2012)

I recently started playing with a guy who says things like "I'll roll a perception check on the door" - it totally weirded me out the first time he did it.  His character never looks, listens or pushes - he make perceptions checks or strength checks.  Maybe I'm just old school, but that doesn't really seem like role-playing for me, and when I'm playing beside him, it breaks my immersion.  I think that 4E D&D was the first version he played, which may have something to do with it.


----------



## N'raac (May 4, 2012)

MortalPlague said:


> In a 4th edition game right now, my rogue has a +17 bonus to stealth.  He's trained, he's dextrous, and he has some items to round it out.  The warlord in our party only has a +4 or so, mostly from half-level.  There's a 13 point difference.  So let's say we're sneaking past a guard post.  What's the DC?  If the DM puts the guards' perception at 22, it means I need to roll a 5 on a d20, while my warlord friend needs to roll an 18.  Rather than attempt to steal quietly past the guards, the warlord will, in all likelihood, stay behind and wait.  The sad fact is, even though his _character_ might make the attempt, as a _player_, he looks at the 85% chance of failure and decides not to attempt the roll.




I would suggest that 22 Perception is the issue.  Why are these guards so amazingly perceptive?  If the intent is that these guards are extremely alert, the post well-designed to limit the opportunities to sneak past it unseen, the type of challenge that most look to and say "No one could do that!", then it seems appropriate that the Warlord should have little to no chance.  If it's a typical fantasy source material guard post with sleepy guards playing cards, perhaps it should be no challenge at all for that stealthy rogue, and much more do-able for the Warlord (say DC 12).



MortalPlague said:


> One of the potential charms of 5th edition is to decrease the spread between someone who's specialized and someone who isn't.  Let's use the same example; my rogue has a +4 from Dexterity, and a +2 bonus while moving quietly.  He's also got +2 for some magic boots.  That winds up being a +8, for a considerable bonus on stealth.  The warlord, on the other hand, has no dexterity bonus, but we'll give him a +2 bonus from a background that has something to do with hunting.  So a +2.  That's a 6 point spread.




That's a difference in chance of success of 30%.  Is that what we want?  Is the best an expert vs someone with no training can achieve is, say, a 40% improvement (removing that +2 background bonus) in his chance of success?  There are points in its favour - the warlord steps out of his comfort zone and tries to be stealthy.  There are also points against it - that specialization in a skill doesn't seem so "special" any more when anyone can manage the same feats with just a little more luck.

We always have a die roll plus a modifier.  As we reduce the spread on the modifiers, we reduce the impact of skill on success, and increase the impact of luck.  If you want a more luck-based success model, this change is a plus.  If you want the truly skilled to shine by achieving tasks viewed as impossible by those less skilled , this system will not deliver.

Auto-success at some level would help, but it means the skilled have less risk of failure when the task is less difficult, rather than shining by achieving the task lesser men view as impossible.  It is the latter that seems, to me, to best mesh with heroic fantasy.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (May 4, 2012)

There is another side to this:

One thing clear and codified rules do is to allow the player to make an educated decision when interacting with the game world. You have a good idea what your own capabilities are, and can act with an accurate idea how it will turn out.

When using a system heavily dependent on DM discretion, it's like interacting with the game world while blindfolded, having only a vague idea what is in front of you.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2012)

thecasualoblivion said:


> There is another side to this:
> 
> One thing clear and codified rules do is to allow the player to make an educated decision when interacting with the game world. You have a good idea what your own capabilities are, and can act with an accurate idea how it will turn out.
> 
> When using a system heavily dependent on DM discretion, it's like interacting with the game world while blindfolded, having only a vague idea what is in front of you.




There are plenty of rules-light systems out there, and it doesn't tend to manifest that way.  It becomes a ore organic, natural exchange of information: "Does that wall look hard to climb?" "it's pretty slippery and there are few handholds; it looks pretty difficult to you."

If you compare an "action" sequence in _Feng Shui_  - heck, or even _Dread_, a game with almost no rules at all - to a rules-heavy system like D&D, this just doesn't become a problem.  What happens is that there's a lot more description and imagination flying round the table than there is game terminology.

Sure, those two examples are pretty extreme, and I don't think anyone's advocating going that light.  But it is a phenomenon that a game with large amounts of game terminology (keywords, skill names, etc.) will tend to become more mired in that terminology as a method of communication rather than using natural language to describe actions.

The example above of "Perception check on the door" is a good one.  Sure, it's a simple example and of course you can say "I listen at the door for movement on the other side"  or "I carefully examine the door for hints of traps" instead, but often people don't; and that's to do with the system, not the people.

I've seen the very same people play two different games, and seen this phenomenon.  The argument that it's the group's fault starts to fall a little thin there, when the exact same people manifest different terminology of interaction with two different games makes it clear that the rules structure_ is_ a factor in this.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (May 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> There are plenty of rules-light systems out there, and it doesn't tend to manifest that way.  It becomes a ore organic, natural exchange of information: "Does that wall look hard to climb?" "it's pretty slippery and there are few handholds; it looks pretty difficult to you."
> 
> If you compare an "action" sequence in _Feng Shui_  - heck, or even _Dread_, a game with almost no rules at all - to a rules-heavy system like D&D, this just doesn't become a problem.  What happens is that there's a lot more description and imagination flying round the table than there is game terminology.
> 
> ...




That kind of misses my point, which is that a light system can result in people being hesitant to take actions in the first place, either because players feel blind to how the game world works, or aren't into that back and forth with the DM. I've seen both at the table.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2012)

thecasualoblivion said:


> That kind of misses my point, which is that a light system can result in people being hesitant to take actions in the first place, either because players feel blind to how the game world works, or aren't into that back and forth with the DM.




I've not noticed that in the rules-light games I've played. People seem perfectly willing to take actions. The main difference is that the range of actions and the way they verbalize them has a tendency to be different.

But yes; I get your point that some people might not be into that natural language method; similarly, some people aren't that into the game-mechanic language method.  Whatever a game does, some people will be into that, and some won't.

It seems to me that WotC is providing for the latter group with the optional rules modules, and for the former group with a core light system.  In other words, they're aiming for both groups of people.


----------



## MichaelSandar (May 4, 2012)

I can't say I'm a big fan of skills in the game overall.  I don't mind that they appear to be adding a bonus to a certain action type (Endurance type checks gain a +2 bonus), but all of these 'skills' are easily resolved with ability checks (when a check is needed at all!) and they darn sure stifle creativity and immersion.  When a player in my 3x game says they're searching a room, and I respond with 'where in the room are you searching?' they stare at me with a blank expression.  'Doesn't the skill cover that?' they ask?

Well, sure.  It does.  But I guess it's all about your individual play style.  

I can't force a player to play one way or another - they need to have fun too, and if it's the rolling of dice that does that, then sure, roll your check.  

BUT.

You would have found the treasure chest under the bed if you had just said you were looking there in the first place.  No check necessary.  To bad you rolled that 1.


----------



## Thotas (May 4, 2012)

MichaelSandar said:


> ...then sure, roll your check.
> 
> BUT.
> 
> You would have found the treasure chest under the bed if you had just said you were looking there in the first place.  No check necessary.  To bad you rolled that 1.




This is the style of play I like best!  The character's skill is acknowledged and incorporated by the rules, but proactive thoughtful players are rewarded as well.  Best of both, in my eyes.


----------



## MortalPlague (May 4, 2012)

N'raac said:


> I would suggest that 22 Perception is the issue.  Why are these guards so amazingly perceptive?



Color my post by the fact that the game we're in is high heroic.  I'm not picturing a generic guard post, but rather a monstrous guard post.  Those are hobgoblin soldiers listening for footfalls, not bored guardsmen.




N'raac said:


> That's a difference in chance of success of 30%.  Is that what we want?  Is the best an expert vs someone with no training can achieve is, say, a 40% improvement (removing that +2 background bonus) in his chance of success?  There are points in its favour - the warlord steps out of his comfort zone and tries to be stealthy.  There are also points against it - that specialization in a skill doesn't seem so "special" any more when anyone can manage the same feats with just a little more luck.



Personally, I don't mind this sort of spread.  I think a 30 or 40% difference is fine to differentiate.  If we're talking a 30% difference in _attack rolls_, we're talking about a vastly superior warrior.  A bonus that large should make itself felt over the course of a campaign.  I'm not in the school of thought that specialists should always succeed and make anyone else look clumsy by comparison.  But with a 6 point swing, a specialist will succeed more often than someone who isn't.

For me, it all comes back to playing outside one's comfort zone.  In the current edition, and in 3E/Pathfinder, players are so heavily discouraged from using anything they aren't trained in.  The spread of numbers is so great that being told to roll a skill you don't have is practically a condemnation to failure.  I want to see D&D enable my characters to make an attempt on a skill I'm not ideally suited for.  My rogue might have a +1 from Intelligence, and he could roll on a DC 15 knowledge check.  Who knows?  Maybe he picked up a scrap of valuable information in his travels.  That warlord from the example could make an attempt to be stealthy, and instead of guaranteed failure, he'd have a fifty - fifty shot to make it.  That sort of flexibility is something I'd like to see.


----------



## N'raac (May 4, 2012)

MortalPlague said:


> Color my post by the fact that the game we're in is high heroic.  I'm not picturing a generic guard post, but rather a monstrous guard post.  Those are hobgoblin soldiers listening for footfalls, not bored guardsmen.




So how likely should it be that the Local Yokel can creep past them unnoticed?  If we want that Warlord with a +2 bonus to slip past on a 13+, that means the local farmer with no bonus or penalty slips past on a 15+, and Clumsy Claude, with his -2 penalty to all things DEX based, will slip past these highly alert hobgoblin soldiers listening intently for footfalls 20% of the time.  Suddenly, those Hobgoblins don't seem remotely alert.

But if we bump the DC to, say, 19 (so Claude, who can roll an 18 at best, does not have a 5% chance of passing unnoticed), then the local yokel gets past 10% of the time (still seems pretty high), and the warlord needs a 15+ - will he take a chance on a 30% possibility of success, or will he stay behind - just like before  - and let the "expert" who now has a 50/50 shot travel alone?  And just how "expert" are you feeling with even odds of failure?



MortalPlague said:


> Personally, I don't mind this sort of spread.  I think a 30 or 40% difference is fine to differentiate.  If we're talking a 30% difference in _attack rolls_, we're talking about a vastly superior warrior.  A bonus that large should make itself felt over the course of a campaign.  I'm not in the school of thought that specialists should always succeed and make anyone else look clumsy by comparison.  But with a 6 point swing, a specialist will succeed more often than someone who isn't.




I would argue that all adventurers have growing expertise in combat.  Their BAB rises over time.  Compared to Local Yokel, that +5 enjoyed by a 10th level Wizard seems pretty impressive, and the wizard isn't doing a lot of combat drills.



MortalPlague said:


> For me, it all comes back to playing outside one's comfort zone.  In the current edition, and in 3E/Pathfinder, players are so heavily discouraged from using anything they aren't trained in.  The spread of numbers is so great that being told to roll a skill you don't have is practically a condemnation to failure.  I want to see D&D enable my characters to make an attempt on a skill I'm not ideally suited for.  My rogue might have a +1 from Intelligence, and he could roll on a DC 15 knowledge check.  Who knows?  Maybe he picked up a scrap of valuable information in his travels.  That warlord from the example could make an attempt to be stealthy, and instead of guaranteed failure, he'd have a fifty - fifty shot to make it.  That sort of flexibility is something I'd like to see.




And that's fine.  It comes down to different goals for the game - how "expert" do we want our experts to be?  This skill model suggests a 20th level Rogue won't be all that much better at stealth than a local farmer.  A lot of his bonuses will likely come from magic items, rather than innate skill.  And anyone with a high DEX will be nearly as effective, since "training" is a +2 flat bonus - there is no actual training to become more stealthy over time.

Why not also set BAB at first level, and be done with that as well.  Then we don't need huge spreads in AC either, and the Wizards have a chance to hit with their daggers, albeit 30% or so lower than the Warrior's.  That should also be enough of a spread, shouldn't it?  Saves can be done the same way - there's no need for them to become more difficult, and have saves improve over time, either, is there?

That model can certainly work.  The question is simply how wide a variance we want between "average Joe", "average adventurer", "trained adventurer" and adventurers (trained or not) of a variety of levels.  Different preferences will certainly exist.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 5, 2012)

MichaelSandar said:


> all of these 'skills' are easily resolved with ability checks




Sometimes, I'd rather replace ability checks with skill checks. A "smart" character is boring. A character who knows about Po Li cooking and Chelaxian drama is interesting. Having one rogue that can climb well and find/remove traps well, and another that can hide in shadows and pick pockets well is more fun then cookie-cutter rogues. That's part of the reason D&D, since AD&D 1, has given players more options to make their character.



> When a player in my 3x game says they're searching a room, and I respond with 'where in the room are you searching?' they stare at me with a blank expression.  'Doesn't the skill cover that?' they ask?



Sure, I'll label the squares of the room, and for each 5-ft. square you can tell me the exact contents of that square, and I will tell you how I'm manipulating those contents, the wall, the ceiling and the floor to examine them. You'll have to be patient since I'm not a trained searcher, unlike my character, but I do know that it involves carefully checking everything.



> You would have found the treasure chest under the bed if you had just  said you were looking there in the first place.  No check necessary.  To  bad you rolled that 1.



And the probability that I will "roll a 1" when I'm searching is much higher then the probability that I will roll a 1 when my character is searching.


----------



## N'raac (May 5, 2012)

Seems to me that a big treasure chest "hidden" under a bed is not that tough to find, so a DC of 5 is probably high.  Anyone with a +4 or better, and certainly anyone taking 10, is going to find it (1's are not skill autofails, at least prior to 4e).  Only someone not very skilled in searching (+3 or less) stands any chance of spending a full round action (ie a few seconds) without looking under the bed in that limited time period.  A thorough search with no time limits (ie taking 20) guarantees it will be found.

So it's really "too bad your character only had a few seconds to search while fleeing from the Bugbears and he rolled a 1".

However, if the range of possible Search bonuses ranges from -2 to +8, then a DC 25 secret door is well nigh impossible for anyone to find by anyone.  What is a "difficult" task under this model?  Probably DC 15, which means the expert searcher finds the hidden door 70% of the time, and the dullard trips over it 20% of the time.


----------



## beepeearr (May 6, 2012)

I think it is WotC intent, and to be honest it sounds a lot like the proficiency system of 2e with passive rolls ie take ten being the default and active rolls ie roll d20 being used only occasionally.  It just seems like a backwards step.  

What is wrong with a character being exceptional at something, working as a team does not require everyone to be able to do everything.  Why would the Armor clad warlord attempt to sneak past the guard, thats the rogues job, let him shine by being able to sneak past, then it is up to him to find a clever way to deal with the sentries.  

Auto success if your bonus alone would succeed or passive checks in non threatening situations could achieve the same increase in game play speed, but I'm not a fan of just saying you failed with no roll though.  

As far as immersion goes, the same effect can be achieved by telling your players to just describe what they are doing, and you as the DM decides what kind of check that is.  

The same people who just say I make a perception or deception check 
will just start saying I make a wisdom or charisma check.  You know what does work though, rewarding the players for good roleplaying or descriptive actions.  

I give hero points (or whatever points ie action points) for good roleplay, and either a +2 or +5 bonus for good descriptions of actions.  After all don't Players like getting rewarded for their actions.


----------



## Alphastream (May 7, 2012)

N'raac said:


> I would suggest that 22 Perception is the issue.  Why are these guards so amazingly perceptive?



I've never had an issue with this. I see 4E as working to capture the story of the PCs, and that story is one of increasing challenge (which ends up being a challenge appropriate to them, since they also increased in capability). At low levels they are involved in things that are low in challenge; the guards they find are guards that are not particularly capable. As the party reaches higher levels, they are interacting with guards that are much more capable. 

While there are a few issues (say, in Epic you come back to the same tavern you visited in Heroic), overall it really works. If you come back to the heroic tavern, the DM shouldn't really be requiring checks. Anyone that requires a check is an epic threat/NPC that has come there due to their reputation, rather than being the same small-time crook from level 1.

For some people this system is really bad. It hurts them to see the DCs of locks increase as their PCs level up. I have always preferred this. The DM can easily explain why, and it really is a waste of time for an Epic PC to have to in any way hear about or deal with a heroic tier lock.


----------



## thzero (May 7, 2012)

Thotas said:


> I'm guessing that the times the DM just says "yeah, you make it, no roll needed" are the replacement of the "take 10" rule.




ding, ding, ding... winner winner chicken dinner!


----------



## thzero (May 7, 2012)

thecasualoblivion said:


> That kind of misses my point, which is that a light system can result in people being hesitant to take actions in the first place, either because players feel blind to how the game world works, or aren't into that back and forth with the DM. I've seen both at the table.




Can I rinse and repeat my answer?  Maybe I've been isolated, but I've never actually set in on a game anywhere (including GenCon) where there was a lot of "immersive acting" going on, but rather everything was in game terms even with games such as Amber (ya, boo, ya, boo, ya, boo).  Any prose related gaming has been through MU*s and/or PBEM/PBP style of games.

Frankly "game terms" is easiest for the vast majority of people to play in.  Not everyone, well IMO most everyone, is not very good at descriptive prose.  And if your group is then that is great for you if that is what you are in to, but for the rest of us "mere gaming mortals" it is just far easier to talk in "game terms".



> Auto success if your bonus alone would succeed or passive checks in non threatening situations could achieve the same increase in game play speed, but I'm not a fan of just saying you failed with no roll though.




Yup.  Done that for eons.  It isn't that hard, it doesn't take any addition rules, and frankly it allows the game to have a more "vibrant" system (skill, attack, etc.) for the situations in which skill does play a factor.



> As far as immersion goes, the same effect can be achieved by telling your players to just describe what they are doing, and you as the DM decides what kind of check that is.




Righto.  I've never seen anything in a crunchy set of rules that says "Do not attempt to feed the bear".   So if a group is good at it and/or enjoys it, or even if one or two players enjoy it (as long as it doesn't interfere with the other's enjoyment.. ) to add "flavor" on top of whatever roles.  That used to be pretty common fare on the RPG MU*s; you roll your mechanic and then based on that "describe" what your character did or did not accomplished.

But the other way does not work.  You can hand wave any rule, but its hard to actually use a rule if it is not there.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 10, 2012)

thecasualoblivion said:


> That kind of misses my point, which is that a light system can result in people being hesitant to take actions in the first place, either because players feel blind to how the game world works, or aren't into that back and forth with the DM. I've seen both at the table.




If you are used to skills for every situation (which a lot of games have these days) it can be tricky. It can also be tricky if you are used to 3e or 4e and go back to an older edition like 2e or 1e where (even with with optional nwp rules) the phb doesn't cover a lot of the more standard skills that come upnin the new editions. We found this when we ran Ravenloft 2e again last year. People were stumbling a bit looking for their perception skill or similar abilities. Personally I am no enemy of skill lists (though I have said I am conflicted about them). What I will say is the difference in the behavior of this group was noticeable (and these are guys who are by nature into heavy role play and immersion). But too often when we ran 3e or similar skill heavy games (including ones I designed) people would say "i intimidate" etc. They may even say they look around the room and then roll a detect check (in my own system). This didn't always happen, but it did tend to occur. Without those skills there was just a lot more detail in their descriptions of what they did and a heck of a lot more interacting with the envirnoment (i look around became "i check behind the statue" and I intimidate became "i give him the stare and loom over him like I am about to throw a punch"). These can all be done in a system of skills, but i think skills do eat at the tendancy to do this. I also think skills can make these descriptions superfluous depending on how gms handles social interaction and detection (does it matter what I say if I roll a 3 or a 19?).


----------

